/A  ,0' 


second  Edition  League  Tract  X. 


l 


lyia 


4 


I 


\ 


* 


A  LAST  WORD  ON 
ANGLICAN  ORDINATIONS 


BEING  AN  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  PONTIFICAL  BULL 
“APOSTOLIC AE  CURAE,”  CONTAINING  A  COMPLETE 
REFUTATION  OF  ALL  THE  OBJECTIONS 
RAISED  AGAINST  THE  PAPAL 
DECISION, 

BY  THE  ^ 

\ 

Rev.  S.  M.  Brandi,  S.  J. 

ROME,  (ITALY  ) 

WITH  A  SPECIAL  BRIEF  FROM  THE  SOVEREIGN  PONTIFF 
APPROVING  THE  WORK, 


AND  NOTES  BY  THE 

Rev.  Sydney  F.  Smith,  S.  J. 


London,  (England.) 


Only  Authorized  English  Version, 
(copyrighted.) 


American  <£cdkskstica£  IRe&in», 

NEW  YORK. 


1897. 


3^5  IT? 
.£>?!  \ 


-ssssssa® 


239628 


The  Last  Word  on  the  Subject  of  Anglican 
Orders  from  the  Apostolic  See. 


Editor’s  Preface. 


WHEN  the  Sovereign  Pontift,  Leo  XIII. ,  made 
public  his  decisive  answer  to  the  question  : 
Whether  the  Catholic  Church  could  accept  as  valid  the 
Orders  administered  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Anglican 
Establishment ,  he  spoke  as  the  Supreme  Judge  in  mat¬ 
ters  of  Catholic  faith,  morals  and  discipline.  That 
such  a  sentence  should  be  final  must  be  concluded  not 
only  from  the  historical  evidence  which  supports  it,  but 
from  the  very  character  of  the  tribunal  whence  the 
decision  proceeds.  In  truth  Leo  XIII.  has  only  formu¬ 
lated  the  constant  judgment  of  his  predecessors  in  the 
Supreme  Apostolic  Office,  and  in  doing  so  has  summed 
up,  in  a  more  explicit  manner  than  had  previously  been 
attempted,  the  evidence  upon  which  that  judgment 
necessarily  rests. 

Although  the  Bull  Apostolicce  Curce ,  which  sets  forth 
the  reasons  of  the  Papal  decision,  is  complete  and  con¬ 
clusive,  inasmuch  as  it  demonstrates  the  mtter  futility 
of  the  Anglican  claims,  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that 
the  Pontiff  in  delivering  a  judicial  decision  would  enter 
into  each  detail,  and  discuss  separately  the  numerous 
arguments  brought  forth  by  those  who  cling  to  the  con¬ 
trary  opinion.  This  task  is  of  necessity  reserved  to 
apologists  qualified  to  explain  and  illustrate,  by  reference 
to  the  sources  of  history  and  theology,  whatever  might 
require  clearing  up  in  the  minds  of  those  who  are  still 


4 


Anglican  Orders. 


insufficiently  informed  to  appreciate  the  full  justice  of 
the  decision. 

Such  has  been  the  work  undertaken  by  the  Rev.  S. 
M.  Brandi,  to  whom  Leo  XIII.  himself  has  given  the 
testimony  that  he  has  rightly  understood,  and  aptly 
expressed  the  mind  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  on  this 
important  question. 

Father  Brandi  has  taken  each  point  of  the  Bull  and 
elucidated  it  by  logical  argument  and  careful  reference  to 
the  historical  facts  involved  in  the  discussion.  And 
since  the  Holy  Father  was  from  the  beginning  aware 
of  the  main  purpose  of  Father  Brandi’s  work  he  directed 
that  the  latter  have  free  access  to  all  the  departments  of 
the  Holy  Office  and  to  the  Secret  Archives  of  the 
Vatican  Library,  in  order  that  he  might  be  able  to  utilize 
whatever  documents  could  be  found  in  addition  to  those 
already  examined  by  the  Papal  Commission  previously 
appointed  for  this  purpose,  whilst  all  the  acts  and  argu¬ 
ments  of  this  same  special  Commission  were  likewise  at 
his  disposal.  In  addition  to  the  work  of  translation  the 
Rev.  Sydney  F.  Smith,  S.  J.  (London),  has  subjoined  to 
present  edition  his  own  notes,  particularly  valuable  in 
view  of  much  information  gathered  by  him  during  the 
inquiry  on  the  subject  of  Anglican  Orders,  in  which  he 
took  a  leading  part. 

No  point  of  the  discussion  remains  unnoticed  and 
unanswered,  and  those  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  read 
carefully  the  following  pages  will  therein  find  a  com¬ 
plete  refutation  of  the  arguments  brought  forth  by 
Anglican  writers  in  the  past,  and  refurbished  with 
modern  phrase  and  assurance  in  the  recent  Letter  of  the 
Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  of  York  addressed  to  the 
Catholic  Clergy. 


H.  J.  H. 


APOSTOLIC  LETTER  ON  ANGLICAN 
ORDINATIONS. 

Leo  Episcoprs  Leo,  Bishop, 


SERVVS  SERVORVM  DEI. 

Ad  Perpetuam  Rei  Memo¬ 
riam  . 

Apostolicae  curae  et  cari¬ 
tatis,  qua  Pastorem  mag¬ 
num  ovium ,  Dominum  nos¬ 
trum  Iesum  Christum  (’), 
referre  pro  munere  et  imi¬ 
tari,  aspirante  eius  gratia, 
studemus  non  exiguam  par¬ 
tem  pernobili  Anglorum 
i  Hebr.  xiii.  20. 


SERVANT  OF  THE  SERVANTS 
OF  GOD. 

In  Pei'petual Remembrance . 

We  have  given  to  the  in¬ 
terests  of  the  noble  English 
nation  no  slight  part  of  the 
Apostolic  care  and  charity 
with  which,  aided  by  His 
grace,  We  endeavor  to  fulfill 
the  office,  and  follow  in  the 
footsteps  of  the  great  Pastor 
of  the  flock,  Our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 


6 


Anglican  Orders. 


nationi  tribuimus.  Volun¬ 
tatis  in  ipsam  Nostrae 
ea  praecipue  testis  est 
epistola  quam  superiore 
anno  dedimus  propriam  ad 
Anglos ,  regnum  Christi  in 
fidei  unitate  quaerentes : 
eiusdem  quippe  gentis  et 
veterem  cum  Ecclesia  matre 
coniunctionem  commemo¬ 
rando  revocavimus,  et  feli¬ 
cem  reconciliationem,  ex¬ 
citati  in  animis  orandi  Dei 
sollertia,  contendimus  ma¬ 
turare.  Rursusque  haud 
ita  pridem,  quum  commu¬ 
nibus  universe  litteris  de 
unitate  Ecclesiae  fusius 
agere  visum  est,  non  ultimo 
loco  respeximus  Angliam  ; 
spe  praelucente,  posse  docu¬ 
menta  Nostra  tum  catholi¬ 
cis  firmitatem  tum  dissiden¬ 
tibus  salutare  lumen  afferre. 
Atque  illud  fateri  libet  quod 
aeque  gentis  humanitatem 
ac  multorum  sollicitudinem 
salutis  aeternae  commen¬ 
dat,  id  est  quam  benevole 
Anglis  probata  sit  instantia 
Nostra  et  dicendi  libertas, 


In  the  Eetter,  which  last 
year  We  sent  to  the  English 
seeking  the  Kingdom  of 
Christ  in  unity  of  faith,  We 
recalled  the  memory  of  the 
ancient  union  of  that  people 
with  the  Mother  Church, and 
We  strove  to  hasten  the  day 
of  a  happy  reconciliation  by 
stirring  up  men’s  hearts  to 
offer  anxious  prayer  to  God. 
And  again,  more  recently, 
when  it  seemed  good  to  Us 
to  treat  more  fully  the  unity 
of  the  Curch  in  a  universal 
appeal,  England  had  not 
the  last  place  in  Our  mind 
in  the  hope  that  our  teach¬ 
ing  might  both  strengthen 
Catholics  and  bring  the 
saving  light  to  those  sepa¬ 
rated  from  us.  It  is  pleas¬ 
ing  to  acknowledge  the 
generous  way  in  which  Our 
endeavor  and  openness  of 
speech,  inspired  by  no  mere 
human  motives,  have  met 
the  approval  of  the  Eng¬ 
lish  people,  a  fact  which 
testifies  not  less  to  their 
nobilty  of  mind  than  to  the 
solicitude  of  many  for  their 
eternal  salvation. 

With  the  same  mind  and 
intention  We  now  purpose 
to  turn  Our  thoughts  to  a 


Apostolic  Letter. 


7 


nullo  quidem  acta  humanae 
rationis  impulsu.  Nunc 
autem  e&dem  Nos  mente 
eodemque  animo  delibera¬ 
tum  habemus  studia  con¬ 
vertere  ad  quamdam  non 
minoris  momenti  causam, 
quae  cum  ea  ipsa  re  votis¬ 
que  Nostris  cohaeret. 
Quod  enim  apud  Anglos, 
aliquanto  postquam  ab 
unitatis  Christianae  cen¬ 
tro  abscessum  est,  novus 
plane  ritus  ordinibus  sa¬ 
cris  conferendis,  sub  rege 
Eduardo  VI.,  fuit  publice 
inductus ;  defecisse  idcirco 
verum  Ordinis  sacramen¬ 
tum,  quale  Christus  insti¬ 
tuit,  simulque  hierarchicam 
successionem,  iam  tenuit 
communis  sententia,  quam 
non  semel  Ecclesiae  acta  et 
constans  disciplina  firma¬ 
runt.  Attamen  recentiore 
memoria  hisque  maxime 
annis  invaluit  controversia, 
sacraene  Ordinationes  ritu 
eduardiano  peractae,  natura 
sacramenti  effectuque  polle¬ 
ant;  faventibus,  affirmate 
vel  dubitanter,  non  modo 
scriptoribus  anglicanis  non¬ 
nullis,  sed  paucis  etiam 
catholicis  praesertim  non 
Anglis.  Alteros  quippe 


matter  of  no  less  import¬ 
ance  and  closely  connected 
with  the  same  subject  and 
with  Our  hopes.  For  an 
opinion  already  prevalent, 
confirmed  more  than  once 
by  the  action  and  constant 
practice  of  the  Church, 
maintained  that  when  in 
England,  shortly  after  it 
was  rent  from  the  centre 
of  Christian  unity,  a  new 
rite  for  conferring  Holy 
Orders  was  publicly  intro¬ 
duced  uuder  Edward  VI., 
the  true  Sacrament  of  Or¬ 
ders  as  instituted  by  Christ 
lapsed,  and  with  it  the  hier¬ 
archical  succession.  For 
some  time,  however,  and 
in  these  last  years  espe¬ 
cially,  a  controversy  has 
sprung  up  as  to  whether 
the  Sacred  Orders  conferred 
according  to  the  Edward- 
ine  Ordinal  possessed  the 
nature  and  effect  of  a  sac¬ 
rament.  In  favor  of  the 
absolute  validity  were  not 
only  certain  Anglican  writ¬ 
ers,  but  some  few  Catholics, 
chiefly  non-English.  The 
consideration  of  the  excel- 
cellency  of  the  Christian 
priesthood  moved  Anglican 
writers  in  this  matter,  desir- 


8 


Anglican  Orders. 


movebat  praestantia  sacer¬ 
dotii  christiani,  exoptantes 
ut  duplici  eius  in  corpus 
Christi  potestate  ne  care¬ 
rent  sui;  movebat  alteros 
consilium  expediendi  quo¬ 
dammodo  illis  reditus  ad 
unitatem :  utrisque  vero 
hoc  persuasum  esse  vide¬ 
batur,  iam  studiis  in  eo 
genere  cum  aetate  provec¬ 
tis,  novisque  litterarum 
monumentis  ex  oblivione 
erutis,  retractari  auctori¬ 
tate  Nostra  causam  non 
inopportunum  fore.  Nos 
autem  ea  consilia  atque 
optata  minime  negligentes 
maximeque  voci  obseque¬ 
ntes  apostolicae  caritatis, 
censuimus  nihil  non  ex¬ 
periri  quod  videretur  quoquo 
modo  conducere  ad  anima¬ 
rum  vel  avertenda  damna 
vel  utilitates  fovendas. 

Placuit  igitur  de  retract¬ 
anda  causa  benignissime 
indulgere  :  ita  sane,  ut  per 
summam  novae  disquisitio¬ 
nis  sollertiam,  omnis  in 
posterum  vel  species  qui¬ 
dem  dubitandi  esset  remota. 
Quapropter  certo  numero 
viris  doctrina  et  eruditione 
praestantibus,  quorum  com¬ 
pertae  erant  dissimiles  in 


ous  as  they  were  that  their 
own  people  should  not  lack 
the  two-fold  power  over 
the  Body  of  Christ.  Cath¬ 
olic  writers  were  impelled 
by  a  wish  to  clear  the  way 
for  the  return  of  Anglicans 
to  holy  unity.  Both,  indeed, 
thought  that  in  view  of  stud¬ 
ies  fostered  by  the  light  of 
recent  research,  and  of  new 
documents  rescued  from  ob¬ 
livion,  it  was  not  inoppor- 
t  u  n  e  to  re-examine  the 
question  under  the  sanc¬ 
ti  o  n  of  Our  authority. 
And,  We,  not  disregarding 
such  desires  and  opinions, 
and,  above  all,  obeying  the 
dictates  of  Apostolic  char¬ 
ity,  thought  that  nothing 
should  be  left  untried  that 
might  in  any  way  tend  to 
preserve  souls  from  harm  or 
procure  their  advantage. 

It  has,  therefore,  pleased 
Us  to  allow  the  cause  to  be 
re-examined,  so  that  by 
reason  of  a  most  thorough 
examination,  all  doubt,  even 
its  least  shadow,  should  be 
removed  for  the  future.  To 
this  end  We  commissioned 
a  certain  number  of  men 
noted  for  their  learning  and 
ability,  whose  opinions  in 


Apostolic  Letter. 


9 


ipsa  causa  opiniones,  nego¬ 
tium  dedimus  ut  momenta 
sententiae  suae  scriptis 
mandarent :  eos  deinde  ad 
Nos  accitos  iussimus  com¬ 
municare  inter  se  scripta, 
et  quidquid  eo  amplius  ad 
rem  cognitu  esset  dignum, 
indagare  atque  expendere. 
Consultumque  a  Nobis  est, 
ut  ipsi  diplomata  opportuna 
omni  possent  copia  in 
tabulariis  vaticanis  sive 
nota  recognoscere  sive  in¬ 
explorata  educere ;  itemque 
ut  prompta  haberent  quae¬ 
cumque  eiusdem  generis 
acta  apud  sacrum  Consil¬ 
ium,  quod  Suprema  vocatur, 
asservarentur,  neque  minus 
quaecumque  ad  hoc  tempus 
doctiores  viri  in  utram  que 
partem  evulgassent.  Hui- 
usmodi  adiumentis  instruc¬ 
tos,  voluimus  eos  in 
singulares  congressiones 
convenire  ;  quae  ad  duode¬ 
cim  sunt  habitae,  praeside 
uno  ex  S.  R.  E.  Cardinali¬ 
bus  a  Nobismetipsis 
designato,  data  singulis 
facultate  disputandi  libera. 
Denique  earumdem  congres¬ 
sionum  acta,  una  cum 
ceteris  documentis,  Venera¬ 
bilibus  Fratribus  Nostris 


this  matter  were  known  to 
be  divergent,  to  state  the 
grounds  of  their  judgments 
in  writing.  We  then,  hav¬ 
ing  summoned  them  to  Our 
presence,  directed  them  to 
communicate  the  results  of 
their  inquiry  to  each  other, 
and  further  to  investigate 
and  discuss  whatever  ap¬ 
peared  requisite  to  obtain  a 
full  knowledge  of  the  mat¬ 
ter.  We  were  careful  also 
that  they  should  be  able 
to  re-examine  all  docu¬ 
ments  bearing  on  this 
question  which  were  known 
to  exist  in  the  Vatican 
archives ;  to  search  for 
new  ones,  and  even  to 
have  at  their  disposal  all 
acts  relating  to  this  subject 
which  are  adduced  by 
learned  men  on  both  sides. 
We  ordered  them,  when 
prepared  in  this  way,  to 
meet  together  in  special 
sessions.  These,  to  the 
number  of  twelve,  were 
held  under  the  presidency 
of  one  of  the  Cardinals  of 
the  Holy  Roman  Church, 
appointed  by  Ourselves,  and 
all  were  invited  to  the  freest 
discussion.  Finally,  We 
directed  that  the  acts  of 


Anglican  Orders. 


ia 


Cardinalibus  ex  eodem 
Consilio  iussimus  exhiberi 
omnia  ;  qui  meditata 
causa  eaque  coram  Nobis 
deinde  agitata,  suam 
quisque  sententiam  di¬ 
cerent. 

Hoc  ducendae  rei  ordine 
praestituto,  ad  intimam 
tamen  aestimationem 
causae  aequum  erat  non 
ante  aggredi,  quam  id  per¬ 
studiose  quaesitum  apparu¬ 
isset,  quo  loco  ea  iam  esset 
secundum  Apostolicae  Sedis 
praescriptiones  institutam- 
que  consuetudinem  ;  cuius 
consuetudinis  et  initia  et 
vim  magni  profecto  intere¬ 
rat  reputare.  Quocirca  in 
primis  perpensa  sunt 
documenta  praecipua 
quibus  Decessores  Nostri, 
rogatu  reginae  Mariae, 
singulares  curas  ad  re¬ 
conciliationem  ecclesiae 
Anglicae  contulerunt. 
Nam  Iulius  III.  Cardi¬ 
nalem  Reginaldum  Pole, 
natione  Anglum,  multi¬ 
plici  laude  eximium,  Lega¬ 
tum  de  latere  ad  id  opus 
destinavit,  tamquam  pacis 
e  t  delectionis  a  ng  e  lum 
suum ,  eique  mandata  seu 
facultates  extra  ordinem 


these  meetings,  together 
with  all  other  documents, 
should  be  submitted  to  Our 
venerable  brethren,  the 
Cardinals  of  the  same  Coun¬ 
cil,  so  that  when  all  had 
studied  the  whole  subject 
and  discussed  it  in  Our 
presence,  each  might  give 
his  opinion. 

This  order  for  discussing 
the  matter  having  been  de¬ 
termined  upon,  it  was  neces¬ 
sary,  with  a  view  to  form¬ 
ing  a  true  estimate  of  the 
real  state  of  the  question, 
to  enter  upon  it  only  after 
careful  inquiry  as  to  how 
the  matter  stood  in  relation 
to  the  prescription  and  set¬ 
tled  custom  of  the  Holy 
See,  the  origin  and  force 
of  which  custom  it  was 
undoubtedly  of  great 
importance  to  deter¬ 
mine.  For  this  reason,  in 
the  first  place,  the  princi¬ 
pal  documents  in  which 
Our  predecessors,  at  the  re¬ 
quest  of  Queen  Mary,  exer¬ 
cised  their  special  care  for 
the  reconciliation  of  the 
English  Church  were  con¬ 
sidered.  Thus  Julius  III. 
sent  Cardinal  Reginald 
Pole,  an  Englishman  and 


Apostolic  Letter. 


n 


normasque  agendi  tradi¬ 
dit  1 ;  quas  deinde  Paulus 
IV.  confirmavit  et  declara¬ 
vit  In  quo  ut  recte  colli¬ 
gatur  quidnam  in  se  comme¬ 
morata  documenta  habeant 
ponderis,  sic  oportet  funda¬ 
menti  instar  statuere, 
eorum  propositum  nequa- 
q  u  a  m  a  re  abstractum 
fuisse,  sed  rei  omnino  in- 
haerens  ac  peculiare. 
Quum  enim  facultates 
Legato  apostolico  ab  iis 
Pontificibus  tributae,  An- 
gliam  dumtaxat  religion¬ 
isque  in  ea  statum  respice¬ 
rent;  normae  item  agendi 
ab  eisdem  eidem  Legato 
quaerenti  impertitae,  mini¬ 
me  quidem  esse  poterant  ad 
illa  generatim  decernenda 
sine  quibus  sacrae  ordina¬ 
tiones  non  valeant,  sed  de¬ 
bebant  attinere  proprie  ad 
providendum  de  ordinibus 
sacris  in  eo  regno,  prout 
temporum  monebant  re- 

i  Id  factum  augusto  mense 
MDL1II.  per  litteras  sub  plumbo, 
Si  ullo  unquam  i  empore  et  Post 
nuntium  Plebis,  atque  alias. 


illustrious  in  many  ways,  to 
be  his  Legate  de  latere  for 
the  purpose,  as  his  angel  oj 
Peace  and  love ,  and  gave 
him  special  mandates  or 
faculties,  and  directions  for 
his  guidance.  These  Paul 
IV.confirmed  and  explained. 
And  here,  to  interpret 
rightly  the  force  of  these 
documents,  it  is  necessary 
to  lay  it  down  as  a  funda¬ 
mental  principle  that  they 
were  certainly  not  intended 
to  deal  with  an  abstract 
state  of  things,  but  with  a 
specific  and  concrete  issue. 
For,  since  the  faculties 
given  by  these  Pontiffs  to  the 
Apostolic  Legate  had  refer¬ 
ence  to  England  only,  and 
to  the  state  of  religion  there¬ 
in,  and  since  the  rules  of 
action  were  laid  down  by 
them  at  the  request  of  the 
said  Legate,  they  could  not 
have  been  mere  directions 
for  determining  the  necess¬ 
ary  conditions  for  the  vali¬ 
dity  of  ordinations  in  gen¬ 
eral.  They  must  pertain  di¬ 
rectly  to  providing  for  Holy 
Orders  in  the  said  kingdom 
as  the  recognized  condition 
of  the  circumstances  and 
times  demanded.  This,  be- 


12 


Anglican  Orders. 


rumque  conditiones  expo¬ 
sitae.  Hoc  ipsum,  praeter 
quam  quod  ex  natura  et 
modo  eorumdem  documen¬ 
torum  perspicuum  est,  inde 
pariter  liquet,  quod  alie¬ 
num  prorsus  fuisset,  ita 
velle  de  iis  quae  sacra¬ 
mento  Ordinis  conficiendo 
necesse  sunt,  propemodum 
commonefieri  Legatum, 
eumque  virum  cuius  doc¬ 
trina  etiam  in  Concilio 
Tridentino  eluxerat. 

Ista  probe  tenentibus  non 
difficulter  patebit  quare  in 
litteris  Iulii  III.  ad  Lega¬ 
tum  apostolicum,  perscriptis 
die  VIII.  martii  MDLIV., 
distincta  sit  mentio  de  iis 
primum  qui  rite  et  legitime 
promoti ,  in  suis  ordinibus 
essent  retinendi,  tum  de  iis 
qui  non  promoti  ad  sacros 
ordines ,  possent,  si  digni  et 
idonei  reperti fuissent ,  pro¬ 
moveri.  Nam  certe  defini- 
teque  notatur,  ut  reapse 
erat,  duplex  hominum 
classis ;  hinc  eorum  qui  sa¬ 
cram  ordinationem  vere  sus¬ 
cepissent,  quippe  id  vel  ante 
Henrici  secessionem,  vel  si 
post  eam  et  per  ministros 
errore  dissidiove  implicitos, 
ritu  tamen  catholico  con¬ 


sides  being  clear  from  the 
nature  and  form  of  the  said 
documents,  is  also  obvious 
from  the  fact  that  it  would 
have  been  altogether  irrele¬ 
vant  to  thus  instruct  the 
Legate,  one  whose  learning 
had  been  conspicuous  in 
the  Council  of  Trent,  as 
to  the  conditions  necessary 
for  the  bestowal  of  the 
Sacrament  of  Orders. 

For  those  who  justly 
estimate  these  facts  it  will 
not  be  difficult  to  under¬ 
stand  why,  in  the  letters 
of  Julius  III.,  issued  to  the 
Apostolic  Legate  on  March 
8,  1554,  there  is  a  distinct 
mention  of,  first,  those  who 
were  rightly  and  lawfully 
promoted  to  Orders*  and 
then,  of  others  who,  not 
promoted  to  sacred  orders , 
might  be  promoted  if  they 
were  found  to  be  worthy 
and  fitting  subjects.  For 
it  is  clearly  and  definitely 
noted,  as  indeed  was  the 
case,  that  there  were  two 
classes  of  men — first,  those 
who  had  really  received 
sacred  Orders,  either  before 
the  secession  of  Henry 
VIII.,  or,  if  after  it,  and 
by  ministers  infected  by 


Apostolic  Letter. 


*3 


sueto ;  inde  aliorum  qui  ini¬ 
tiati  essent  secundum  Ordi¬ 
nale  eduardianum,  qui  pro- 
terea  possent  promoveri , 
quia  ordinationem  accepis¬ 
sent  irritam.  Neque  aliud 
sane  Pontificis  consilium 
fuisse,  praeclare  confirmat 
epistola  eiusdem  Legati,  die 
XXIX.  ianuarii  MDLV., 
facultates  suas  episcopo 
Norwicensi  demandantis. 
Id  amplius  est  potissime 
considerandum  quod  eae  ip¬ 
sae  Iulii  III.  litterae  affer¬ 
unt,  de  facultatibus  ponti¬ 
ficiis  libere  utendis,  etiam 
in  eorum  bonum  quibus 
munus  consecrationis,  mi¬ 
nus  rite  et  no7i  servata  forma 
Ecclesiae  consueta ,  impen¬ 
sum  fuit :  qua  quidem  locu¬ 
tione  ii  certe  designabantur 
qui  consecrati  eduardiano 
ritu;  praeter  eam  namque 
et  catholicam  formam  alia 
nulla  erat  eo  tempore  in 
Anglia. 

Haec  autem  apertiora 
fient  commemorando  le¬ 
gationem  quam  Philippus  et 


error  and  schism,  still  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  usual 
Catholic  rite;  second,  those 
who  were  initiated  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Edwardine  Ordi¬ 
nal,  who,  therefore,  were  to 
be  promoted  since  they  had 
received  an  ordination 
which  was  null.  And  that 
the  mind  of  the  Pope  was 
this  and  nothing  else  is 
clearly  confirmed  by  the  let¬ 
ter  of  the  said  Legate  (Janu¬ 
ary  29, 1555),  sub-delegating 
his  faculties  to  the  Bishop 
of  Norwich.  Moreover,  what 
the  letters  of  Julius  III. 
themselves  say  about  freely 
using  the  Pontifical  facul¬ 
ties,  even  in  behalf  of  those 
who  had  received  their  con¬ 
secration  not  according  to  the 
rite  and  the  accustomed  form 
of  the  Church ,  is  to  be  espe¬ 
cially  noted.  By  this  ex¬ 
pression  those  only  could  be 
meant  who  had  been  conse¬ 
crated  according  to  the  Ed¬ 
wardine  rite,  since  besides 
it  and  the  Catholic  form 
there  was  then  no  other  in 
England. 

This  becomes  even  still 
clearer  when  we  consider 
the  legation  which,  on  the 
advice  of  Cardinal  Pole, 


H 


Anglican  Orders. 


Maria  reges,  suadente  Car¬ 
dinali  Polo,  Romam  ad 
Pontificem  februario  men¬ 
se  MDLV.  miserunt.  Re¬ 
gii  oratores,  viri  tres  admo¬ 
dum  insignes  et  omni  virtute 
praediti ,  in  quibus  Thomas 
Thirlby, episcopus  Eliensis, 
sic  habebant  propositum, 
Pontificem  de  conditione 
rei  religiosae  in  eo  regno 
notitia  ampliore  edocere, 
ab  ipsoque  in  primis  petere 
ut  ea  quae  Legatus  ad 
eiusdem  regni  cum  Ecclesia 
reconciliationem  curaverat 
atque  effecerat,  haberet  rata 
et  confirmaret :  eius  rei 
caus4  omnia  ad  Pontificem 
allata  sunt  testimonia  scrip¬ 
ta  quae  oportebat,  partesque 
Ordinalis  novi  proxime  ad 
rem  facientes.  Iamvero 
Paulus  IV.  legatione  mag¬ 
nifice  admissa,  eisdemque 
testimoniis  per  certos  ali¬ 
quot  Cardinales  diligenter 
discussis ,  et  habita  delibe¬ 
ratione  matura,  literas  Prae¬ 
clara  Carissimi  sub  plumbo 
dedit  die  XX.  iunii  eodem 
anno.  In  his  quum  compro¬ 
batio  plena  et  robur  addi¬ 
tum  sit  rebus  a  Polo  gestis, 
de  ordinationibus  sic  est 
praescriptum  :...  qui  ad  or- 


the  Sovereign  Princes, 
Philip  and  Mary,  sent  to 
the  Pope  in  Rome,  in 
the  month  of  February, 
1555.  The  Royal  Ambas¬ 
sadors,  three  men  “  most 
illustrious  and  endowed 
with  every  virtue,  ’  ’  of  whom 
one  was  Thomas  Thirlby, 
Bishop  of  Ely,  were  charged 
to  inform  the  Pope  more 
fully  as  to  the  religious 
condition  of  the  country, 
and  especially  to  beg  that 
he  would  ratify  and  con¬ 
firm  what  the  Legate  had 
been  at  pains  to  effect,  and 
had  succeeded  in  effecting, 
towards  the  reconciliation 
of  the  Kingdom  with  the 
Church.  For  this  purpose 
all  the  necessary  written 
evidence,  and  the  pertinent 
parts  of  the  new  Ordinal 
were  submitted  to  the  Pope. 
The  Legation  having  been 
splendidly  received,  and 
their  evidence  having  been 
diligently  discussed  by  sev¬ 
eral  of  the  Cardinals,  after 
mature  deliberation  Paul 
IV.  issued  his  Bull  Prae¬ 
clara  Carissimi,  on  June  20, 
of  that  same  year.  In  this, 
while  giving  full  force  and 
approbation  to  what  Pole 


Apostolic  Letter. 


!5 


dines  ecclesiasticos...  ab  alio 
quam  ab  episcopo  rite  et  recte 
ordinato  promoti  fuerunt , 
eosdem  ordines...  de  novo 
suscipere  teneantur.  Qui¬ 
nam  autem  essent  episcopi 
tales,  non  rite  recteque 
ordinati ,  satis  iam  indica¬ 
verant  superiora  docu¬ 
menta,  facultatesque  in 
eam  rem  a  Legato  adhi¬ 
bitae:  ii  nimirum  qui  ad 
episcopatum,  sicut  alii  ad 
alios  ordines,  promoti  es¬ 
sent,  non  servatd forma  Ec¬ 
clesiae  consueta ,  vel  non 
servata  Ecclesiae  forma  et 
intentione ,  prout  Legatus 
ipse  ad  episcopum  Nor- 
wicensem  scribebat.  Hi 
autem  non  alii  profecto 
erant  nisi  qui  promoti  se¬ 
cundum  novam  ritualem 
formam;  cui  quoque  exami¬ 
nandae  delecti  Cardinales 
attentam  operam  dede¬ 
rant  Neque  praetermit¬ 
tendus  est  locus  ex  eis¬ 
dem  Pontificis  litteris,  om¬ 
nino  rei  congruens ;  ubi 
cum  aliis  beneficio  dispen¬ 
sationis  egentibus  numera¬ 
ntur  qui  tam  ordines  quam 
beneficia  ecclesiastica  nulli- 
ter  et  de  facto  obtinuerant. 
Nulliter  enim  obtinuisse 


had  done,  it  is  ordered  in 
the  matter  of  the  ordina¬ 
tions  as  follows :  Those 
who  have  been  promoted 
to  ecclesiastical  Orders  by 
any  one  but  by  a  Bishop 
validly  and  lawfully  or¬ 
dained  are  bound  to  receive 
those  Orders  agai?i;  but  who 
those  Bishops  not  validly 
and  lawfully  ordained  were, 
had  been  made  sufficiently 
clear  by  the  foregoing 
documents,  and  the  facul¬ 
ties  used  in  the  said  matter 
by  the  Legate ;  those, 
namely,  who  have  been 
promoted  to  the  episcopate, 
as  others  to  other  Orders, 
not  according  to  the  ac¬ 
customed form  of  the  Church , 
or,  as  the  Legate  himself 
wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  Nor¬ 
wich,  the  form  and  inten¬ 
tion  of  the  Church  not  hav¬ 
ing  been  observed.  These 
were  certainly  those  pro¬ 
moted  according  to  the 
new  form  of  rite,  to  the  ex¬ 
amination  of  which  the 
Cardinals  specially  de¬ 
puted  had  given  their  care- 
ful  attention.  Neither 
should  a  passage,  much  to 
the  point,  in  the  same  Pon¬ 
tifical  letter,  be  overlooked, 


i6 


Anglican  Orders. 


ordines  idem  est  atque 
irrito  actu  nulloque  effectu, 
videlicet  invalide ,  ut  ipsa 
monet  eius  vocis  notatio  et 
consuetudo  sermonis ;  prae¬ 
sertim  quum  idem  pari 
modo  affirmetur  de  ordini¬ 
bus  quod  de  beneficiis  eccle¬ 
siasticis,  quae  ex  certis 
sacrorum  canonum  institu¬ 
tis  manifesto  erant  nulla, 
eo  quia  cum  vitio  in¬ 
firmante  collata.  Huc  ac¬ 
cedit  quod,  ambigentibus 
nonnullis  quinam  revera 
episcopi,  rite  et  recte  ordi¬ 
nati ,  dici  et  haberi  possent  ad 
mentem  Pontificis,  hic  non 
multo  post,  die  XXX.  octo- 
bris,  alias  subiecit  litteras 
in  modum  Brevis:  atque, 
Nos,  inquit,  haesitatione7n 
huiusmodi  tollere ,  et  sereni¬ 
tati  conscientiae  eorum  qui 
schismate  durante  ad  or¬ 
dines  promoti  fuerant ,  men¬ 
tem  et  intentionem  quam  in 
eisdem  litteris  Nostris  ha¬ 
buimus  clarius  exprimendo , 
opportune  consulere  volen¬ 
tes ,  declaramus  eos  tantum 
episcopos  et  archiepiscopos 
qui  non  in  forma  Ecclesiae 
ordinati  et  consecrati  fue¬ 
runt ,  rite  et  recte  ordinatos 
dici  non  posse.  Quae  de- 


where,  together  with  others 
needing  dispensation,  are 
enumerated  those  who  had 
obtained  as  well  Orders 
as  benefices  “  nulliter  et  de 
facto."  For  to  obtain 
orders  nulliter  means  that 
they  are  an  act  null  and 
void,  that  is  invalid,  as  the 
very  meaning  of  the  word 
and  as  common  usage  oi 
language  require.  This  is 
especially  clear  when  the 
word  is  used  in  the  same  way 
of  orders  as  of  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  benefices.  These,  by  the 
undoubted  teaching  of  the 
sacred  canons,  were  clearly 
null  if  given  with  any  vitiat¬ 
ing  defect.  Moreover,  when 
some  doubted  as  to  who, 
according  to  the  mind  of 
the  Pontiff,  could  be  called 
and  considered  Bishops 
validly  and  lawfully  or¬ 
dained,  the  said  Pope 
shortly  after,  on  October 
30,  issued  further  letters  in 
the  form  of  a  Brief,  and 
said :  We,  wishing  to  re¬ 
move  the  doubt,  and  to  op¬ 
portunely  provide  for  the 
peace  of  conscience  of 
those  who ,  during  the 
schism,  were  promoted  to 
orders,  by  expressing  more 


Apostolic  Letter. 


*7 


claratio,  nisi  apposite  ad 
rem  Angliae  praesentem,  id 
est  ad  Ordinale  eduardi- 
anum,  spectare  debuisset, 
nihil  certe  confecerat  Pon¬ 
tifex  novis  litteris,  quo  vel 
haesitationem  tolleret  vel 
serenitati  conscientiae  con¬ 
suleret.  Ceterum  Apos- 
tolicae  Sedis  documenta  et 
mandata  non  aliter  quidem 
Legatus  intellexit,  atque 
ita  eis  rite  religioseque  ob¬ 
temperavit  :  idque  pariter 
factum  a  regina  Maria  et  a 
ceteris  qui  cum  ea  dede¬ 
runt  operam  ut  religio  et 
instituta  catholica  pristi¬ 
num  locum  restituerentur. 

Auctoritates  quas  excita¬ 
vimus  Iulii  III.  et  Pauli 
IV.  aperte  ostendunt  initia 
eius  disciplinae  quae  tenore 
constanti,  iam  tribus  am¬ 
plius  saeculis,  custodita  est, 
ut  ordinationes  ritu  Eduar- 
diano  haberentur  infectae 
et  nullae ;  cui  disciplinae 
amplissime  suffragantur 
testimonia  multa  earum- 
dem  ordinationum  quae, 


clearly  the  mind  and  inten¬ 
tion  which  we  had  in  the 
aforesaid  letters ,  declare 
that  only  those  Bishops  and 
Archbishops ,  who  were  not 
ordained  and  consecrated 
in  the  form  of  the  Church , 
cannot  be  said  to  be  validly 
and  lawfully  or  darned.  Un¬ 
less  this  declaration  had  ap¬ 
plied  to  the  actual  case  in 
England — that  is  to  say,  to 
the  Edwardine  Ordinal— 
the  Pope  would  certainly 
have  done  nothing  by  these 
last  letters  for  the  removal 
of  doubt ,  and  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  peace  of  conscience. 
Further,  it  was  in  this 
sense  that  the  Legate  un¬ 
derstood  the  documents 
and  commands  of  the  Apos¬ 
tolic  See,  and  duly  and 
conscientiously  obeyed 
them ;  and  the  same  was 
done  by  Queen  Mary,  and 
the  rest  who  helped  to 
restore  the  Catholic  religion 
to  its  former  state. 

The  authority  of  Julius 
III.  and  Paul  IV.,  which  we 
have  quoted,  clearly  shows 
the  origin  of  the  practice, 
which  has  been  observed 
without  interruption  for 
more  than  three  centuries, 


1 8 


Anglican  Orders. 


in  hac  etiam  Urbe,  saepius 
absoluteque  iteratae  sunt 
ritu  catholico.  In  huius 
igitur  disciplinae  obser¬ 
vantia  vis  inest  opportuna 
proposito.  Nam  si  cui  forte 
quidquam  dubitationis  resi¬ 
deat  in  quamnam  vere  sen- 
tentiam  ea  Pontificum 
diplomata  sint  accipienda, 
recte  illud  valet :  Consue¬ 
tudo  optima  legum  interpres . 
Quoniam  vero  firmum  sem¬ 
per  ratumque  in  Ecclesia 
mansit,  Ordinis  sacramen¬ 
tum  nefas  esse  iterari,  fieri 
nullo  pacto  poterat  ut 
talem  consuetudinem  Apo- 
stolica  Sedes  pateretur 
tacita  ac  toleraret.  Atqui 
eam  non  toleravit  solum, 
sed  probavit  etiam  et 
sanxit  ipsa,  quotiescum¬ 
que  in  eadem  re  peculiare 
aliquod  factum  inci¬ 
dit  iudicandum.  Duoeius- 
modi  facta  in  medium  pro¬ 
ferimus,  ex  multis  quae  ad 
Supremam  sunt  subinde 
delata:  alterum,  anno 
MDCLXXXIV.,  cuiusdam 


that  ordination  according 
to  the  Edwardine  rite 
should  be  considered  null 
and  void.  This  practice  is 
fully  proved  by  the  numer¬ 
ous  cases  of  absolute  reordi¬ 
nation  according  to  the 
Catholic  rite,  even  in  Rome. 
In  the  observance  of  this 
practice  we  have  a  proof 
directly  affecting  the  matter 
in  hand,  for  if  by  any 
chance  doubt  should  remain 
as  to  the  true  sense  in 
which  these  Pontifical 
documents  are  to  be  under¬ 
stood,  the  principle  holds 
good  that  custom  is  the  best 
interpreter  of  law.  Since  in 
the  Church  it  has  ever  been 
a  constant  and  established 
rule  that  it  is  sacrilegious 
to  repeat  the  Sacrament  of 
Orders,  it  never  could  have 
come  to  pass  that  the  Apos¬ 
tolic  See  should  have  silent¬ 
ly  acquiesced  in  and  tolerat¬ 
ed  such  a  custom.  But  not 
only  did  the  Apostolic  See 
tolerate  this  practice,  but 
approved  and  sanctioned  it 
as  often  as  any  particular 
case  arose  which  called  for 
its  judgment  in  the  matter. 
We  adduce  two  facts  of  this 
kind  out  of  many  which 


Apostolic  Letter. 


19 


Calvinistae  Galli,  alterum, 
anno  MDCCIV.,  Ioannis 
dementis  Gordon ;  utri- 
usque  secundum  rituale 
Eduardianum  suos  adepti 
ordines.  In  primo,  post 
accuratam  rei  investigatio¬ 
nem,  consultores  non  pauci 
responsa  sua,  quae  appel¬ 
lant  vota,  de  scripto  edide¬ 
runt,  ceterique  cum  eis  in 
unam  conspirarunt  senten¬ 
tiam,  pro  invaliditate  ordi¬ 
nationis  :  tantum  quidem 
ratione  habita  opportunita¬ 
tis,  placuit  Cardinalibus 
respondere,  Dilata.  Eadem 
vero  acta  repetita  et  ponde¬ 
rata  sunt  in  facto  altero: 
quaesita  sunt  prae¬ 
terea  nova  consultorum 
vota,  rogatique  doctores 
egregii  e  Sorbonicis  ac 
Duacenis,  neque  praesi¬ 
dium  ullum  perspicacioris 
prudentiae  praetermissum 
est  ad  rem  penitus  perno¬ 
scendam.  Atque  hoc  ani¬ 
madvertisse  oportet  quod, 
tametsi  tum  ipse  Gordon 
cuius  negotium  erat,  tum 
aliqui  consultores  inter  cau¬ 
sas  nullitatis  vindicandae 
etiam  adduxissent  illam 
prout  putabatur  #  ordina¬ 
tionem  Parkerii,  in  senten- 


have  from  time  to  time  been 
submitted  to  the  Supreme 
Council  of  the  Holy  Office. 
The  first  was  (in  1684)  of  a 
certain  French  Calvinist, 
and  the  other  (1704)  of  John 
Clement  Gordon,  both  of 
whom  had  received  their 
Orders  according  to  the 
Edward  ine  ritual.  In  the 
first  case,  after  a  searching 
investigation  the  consult- 
ors,  not  a  few  in  number, 
gave  in  writing  their 
answer,  or,  as  they  call  it, 
their  vota,  and  the  rest 
unanimously  agreed  with 
their  conclusion,  for  the  in¬ 
validity  of  the  ordination , 
and  only  on  account  of  rea¬ 
sons  of  opportuneness  did 
the  Cardinals  deem  it  well 
to  answer  by  a  dilata  (viz., 
not  to  formulate  the  conclu¬ 
sion  at  the  moment).  The 
same  documents  were  called 
into  use  and  considered 
again  in  the  examination  of 
the  second  case,  and  addi¬ 
tional  written,  statements 
of  opinion  were  also  ob¬ 
tained  from  consultors,  and 
the  most  eminent  doctors 
of  the  Sorbonne  and  of  the 
Douai  Universities  were 
likewise  asked  for  their 


20 


Anglican  Orders. 


tia  tamen  ferenda  omnino 
seposita  est  ea  causa,  ut 
documenta  produnt  inte¬ 
grae  fidei,  neque  alia  ratio 
est  reputata  nisi  defectus 
formae  et  intentionis.  Qua 
de  forma  quo  plenius  esset 
certiusque  iudicium,  cau¬ 
tum  fuerat  ut  exemplai  Ordi¬ 
nalis  anglicani  suppeteret ; 
atque  etiam  cum  eo  singu¬ 
lae  collatae  sunt  formae 
ordinandi,  ex  variis  orienta¬ 
lium  et  occidentalium  riti¬ 
bus  conquisitae.  Tum  Cle¬ 
mens  XI.,  Cardinalium  ad 
quos  pertinebat  consenti¬ 
entibus  suffragiis,  ipsemet 
feria  V.,  die  XVII.  aprilis 
MDCCIV. ,  decrevit:  “  Ioan- 
nes  Clemens  Gordon  ex  in¬ 
tegro  et  absolute  ordinetur 
ad  omnes  ordines  etiam 
sacros  et  praecipue  presby¬ 
teratus,  et  quatenus  non 
fuerit  confirmatus,  prius 
sacramentum  Confirma¬ 
tionis  suscipiat.”  Quae 
sententia,  id  sane  con¬ 
siderare  refert,  ne  a  de¬ 
fectu  quidem  traditionis 
instrumentorum  quidquam 
momenti  duxit :  tunc  enim 
praescriptum  de  more  esset 
ut  ordinatio  sub  conditione 
instauraretur.  Eo  autem 


opinion.  No  safeguard 
which  wisdom  and  pru¬ 
dence  could  suggest  to  en¬ 
sure  the  thorough  sifting 
of  the  question  was  ne¬ 
glected. 

And  here  it  is  important 
to  observe  that  although 
Gordon  himself,  whose  case 
it  was,  and  some  of  the  con- 
sultors,  had  adduced, 
amongst  the  reasons  which 
went  to  prove  invalidity, 
the  ordination  of  Parker, 
according  to  their  own  ideas 
about  it,  in  the  delivery  of 
the  decision  this  reason  was 
altogether  set  aside,  as  docu¬ 
ments  of  incontestable  au¬ 
thenticity  prove.  In  pro¬ 
nouncing  the  decision, 
weight  was  given  to  no 
other  reason  than  the  defect 
of  form  and  intention ,  and, 
in  order  that  the  judgment 
concerning  this  form  might 
be  more  certain  and  com¬ 
plete,  precaution  was  taken 
that  a  copy  of  the  Anglican 
Ordinalshouldbe  submitted 
to  examination,  and  that 
with  it  should  be  collated 
the  ordination  forms 
gathered  together  from 
the  various  Eastern 
and  Western  rites. 


Apostolic  Letter. 


21 


pluris  refert  considerare, 
eamdem  Pontificis  senten¬ 
tiam  spectare  universe  ad 
omnes  Anglicanorum  ordi¬ 
nationes.  Licet  enim  fac¬ 
tum  attigerit  peculiare,  non 
tamen  ex  peculiari  quapi¬ 
am  ratione  profecta  est,  ve¬ 
rum  ex  vitio  formae ,  quo 
quidem  vitio  ordinationes 
illae  aeque  afficiuntur  om¬ 
nes  :  adeo  ut,  quoties  de¬ 
inceps  in  re  simili  decer¬ 
nendum  fuit,  toties  idem 
Clementis  XI.  communica¬ 
tum  sit  decretum. 

Quae  quum  ita  sint,  non 
videt  nemo  controversiam 
temporibus  nostris  exsusci¬ 
tatam,  Apostolicae  Sedis 
iudicio  definitam  multo 
antea  fuisse :  documentis¬ 
que  illis  haud  satis  quam 
oportuerat  cognitis,  for¬ 
tasse  factum  ut  scriptor  ali¬ 
quis  catholicus  disputatio¬ 
nem  de  ea  libere  habere 
non  dubitarit.  Quoniam 
vero,  ut  principio  monui¬ 
mus,  nihil  Nobis  antiquius 
optatiusque  est  quam  ut 


Then  Clement  XL  him¬ 
self,  with  the  unanimous 
vote  of  the  Cardinals  con¬ 
cerned,  on  the  Feria  F, 
April  17th,  1704,  decreed  : 
“John  Clement  Gordon 
shall  be  ordained  from  the 
beginning  and  uncondition¬ 
ally ,  to  all  the  Orders,  even 
sacred  Orders,  and  chiefly 
of  priesthood,  and  in  case 
he  has  not  been  confirmed 
he  shall  first  receive  the 
sacrament  of  Confirma¬ 
tion.”  It  is  important  to 
bear  in  mind  that  this  judg¬ 
ment  was  in  no  wise  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  omission  of 
the  rite  of  handing  over 
the  instruments ,  for  in  such 
a  case,  according  to  the  es¬ 
tablished  custom,  the  direc¬ 
tion  would  have  been  to 
repeat  the  ordination  con¬ 
ditionally.  Still  more  im¬ 
portant  is  it  to  note  that 
the  judgment  of  the  Pon¬ 
tiff  applies  universally  to 
all  Anglican  ordinations, 
because,  although  it  refers 
to  a  particular  case,  it  is 
not  based  upon  any  reason 
special  to  that  case,  but 
upon  the  defect  of  form , 
which  defect  equally  af¬ 
fects  all  these  ordinations, 


22 


Anglican  Orders. 


hominibus  recte  animatis 
maximfi  possimus  indul- 
gentid  et  caritate  prodesse, 
ideo  iussimus  in  Ordinale 
anglicanum,  quod  caput  est 
totius  causae,  rursus  quam 
studiosissime  inquiri. 

In  ritu  cuiuslibet  confici¬ 
endi  et  administrandi  iure 
discernunt  inter  partem 
caeremonialem  et  partem 
essentialem  quae  materia 
et  forma  appellari  consue¬ 
vit.  Omnesque  norunt, 
sacramenta  novae  legis,  ut- 
pote  signa  sensibilia  atque 
gratiae  invisibilis  efficien¬ 
tia,  debere  gratiam  et  sig¬ 
nificare  quam  efficiunt  et 
efficere  quam  significant. 
Quae  significatio,  etsi  in 
toto  ritu  essentiali,  in  ma¬ 
teria  scilicet  et  forma, 
haberi  debet,  praecipue  ta¬ 
men  ad  formam  pertinet; 
quum  materia  sit  pars  per 
se  non  determinata,  quae 
per  illam  determinetur.  Id- 
que  in  sacramento  Ordinis 
manifestius  apparet  cuius 
conferendi  materia,  qua- 


so  much  so  that  when 
similar  cases  subsequently 
came  up  for  decision  the 
same  decree  of  Clement  XI. 
was  quoted  as  the  rule  to 
follow. 

Hence  it  must  be  clear  to 
every  one  that  the  contro¬ 
versy,  lately  revived,  had 
been  already  definitely  set¬ 
tled  by  the  Apostolic  See, 
and  that  it  is  to  the  insuf¬ 
ficient  knowledge  of  these 
documents  that  we  must, 
perhaps,  attribute  the  fact 
that  any  Catholic  writer 
should  have  considered  it 
still  an  open  question.  But, 
as  We  stated  at  the  begin¬ 
ning,  there  is  nothing  We 
so  deeply  and  ardently  de¬ 
sire  as  to  be  of  help  to  men 
of  good  will  by  showing 
them  the  greatest  consider¬ 
ation  and  charity,  where¬ 
fore  We  ordered  that  the 
Anglican  Ordinal,  which  is 
the  essential  point  of  the 
whole  matter,  should  be  at 
once  most  carefully  exam¬ 
ined. 

In  the  examination  of  any 
rite  for  the  effecting  and 
administering  of  a  sacra¬ 
ment,  distinction  is  rightly 
made  between  the  part 


Apostolic  Letter. 


23 


tenus  hoc  loco  se  dat 
considerandam,  est  ma¬ 
nuum  impositio ;  quae  qui¬ 
dem  nihil  definitum  per 
se  significat,  et  aeque  ad 
quosdam  Ordines,  aeque  ad 
Confirmationem  usurpatur. 
Iamvero  verba  quae  ad 
proximam  usque  aetatem 
habentur  passim  ab  Angli- 
canis  tamquam  forma  pro¬ 
pria  ordinationis  presby- 
teralis,  videlicet,  Accipe 
Spiritum  Sanctum ,  minime 
sane  significant  definite 
ordinem  sacerdotii  vel  eius 
gratiam  et  potestatem, 
quae  praecipue  est  potestas 
consecrandi  e  t  offerendi 
verum  corpus  et  sanguinem 
Domini1 ,  eo  sacrificio,  quod 
non  est  nuda  commemoratio 
sacrificii  in  Cruce  peracti? 
Forma  huiusmodi  aucta 
quidem  est  postea  iis  verbis, 
ad  officium  et  opus  presby¬ 
teri :  sed  hoc  potius  con- 

1  Trid.  Sess.  XXIII.,  de.  sacr. 
Ord.  can.  1. 

2.  Ib.  Sess.  XXII.,  de  sacri/. 
Missae ,  can.  3. 


which  is  ceremonial  and 
that  which  is  essential ,  usu¬ 
ally  called  the  “  matter  and 
form.  ”  All  know  that  the 
sacraments  of  the  New  Law, 
as  sensible  and  efficient 
signs  of  invisible  grace, 
ought  both  to  signify  the 
grace  which  they  effect  and 
effect  the  grace  which  they 
signify.  Although  the  sig¬ 
nification  ought  to  be  found 
in  the  whole  essential  rite, 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  matter 
and  form,  it  still  pertains 
chiefly  to  the  form,  since 
the  matter  is  the  part  which 
is  not  determined  by  itself, 
but  which  is  determined  by 
the  form  ;  and  this  appears 
still  more  clearly  in  the  Sac¬ 
rament  of  Orders,  the  mat¬ 
ter  of  which,  in  so  far  as  we 
have  to  consider  it  in  this 
case,  is  the  imposition  of 
hands,  which  indeed  by 
itself  signifies  nothing  defi¬ 
nite,  and  is  equally  used  for 
several  orders,  and  for  con¬ 
firmation.  But  the  words 
which,  until  recently,  were 
commonly  held  by  Angli¬ 
cans  to  constitute  the 
proper  form  of  priestly 
ordination,  namely:  “ Re¬ 
ceive  the  Holy  Ghost  f  cer- 


24 


Anglican  Orders. 


vincit,  Anglicanos  vidisse 
ipsos  primam  eam  formam 
fuisse  mancam  neque  ido¬ 
neam  rei.  Eadem  vero 
adiectio,  si  forte  quidem  le¬ 
gitimam  significationem  ap¬ 
ponere  formae  posset,  serius 
est  inducta,  elapso  iam  sae¬ 
culo  post  receptum  Ordinale 
eduardianum  ;  quum  prop- 
terea,  Hierarchid  extincta, 
potestas  ordinandi  iam 
nulla  esset.  Nequidquam 
porro  auxilium  causae  no¬ 
vissime  arcessitum  est  ab 
aliis  eiusdem  Ordinalis  pre¬ 
cibus.  Nam,  ut  cetera 
praetereantur  quae  eas  de¬ 
monstrent  in  ritu  anglicano 
minus  sufficientes  propo¬ 
sito,  unum  hoc  argumen¬ 
tum  sit  instar  omnium,  de 
ipsis  consulto  detractum 
esse  quidquid  in  ritu  catho¬ 
lico  dignitatem  et  officia 
sacerdotii  perspicue  desi¬ 
gnat.  Non  ea  igitur  forma 
esse  apta  et  sufficiens  sacra¬ 
mento  potest,  quae  id 
nempe  reticet  quod  deberet 
proprium  significare. 


tainly  do  not  in  the  least 
definitely  express  the  sacred 
order  of  priesthood  or  its 
grace  and  power,  which  is 
chiefly  the  power  of  conse¬ 
crating  and  offering  the  true 
Body  and  Blood  off  the  Lord 
(Council  of  Trent,  Sess. 
XXIII.,  De  Sacr.  Ord.t 
Can.  i.)  in  that  sacrifice 
which  is  no  “nude  com¬ 
memoration  of  the  sacrifice 
offered  on  the  cross.”  (Ibid. 
Sess.  XXII.,  De  Sacrif 
Mi  ss  a  e  ,  Can.  3.)  This 
form  had  indeed  after¬ 
wards  added  to  it  the 
words,  “ ffor  the  ojffice 
and  work  of  a  priest ,”  etc  ., 
but  this  rather  shows  that 
the  Anglicans  themselves 
perceived  that  the  first  form 
was  defective  and  inade¬ 
quate.  But  even  if  this 
addition  could  give  to  the 
form  its  due  signification, 
it  was  introduced  too  late, 
as  a  century  had  already 
elapsed  since  the  adoption 
of  the  Edwardine  Ordinal ; 
for  as  the  Hierarchy  had 
become  extinct  there  re¬ 
mained  no  power  of  ordain¬ 
ing.  In  vain  has  help  been 
recently  sought  for  the  plea 
of  the  validity  of  Orders 
from  the  other  prayers  of 


Apostolic  Letter. 


25 


De  consecratione  episco¬ 
pali  similiter  est.  Nam 
formulae,  Accipe  Spiritum 
Sanctum ,  non  modo  serius 
adnexa  sunt  verba,  ad  offi¬ 
cium  et  opus  episcopi ,  sed 
etiam  de  iisdem,  ut  mox 
dicemus,  iudicandum  aliter 
est  quam  in  ritu  catholico. 
Neque  rei  proficit  quid¬ 
quam  advocasse  praefa¬ 
tionis  precem,  Omnipotens 
Deus;  quum  ea  pariter  de¬ 
minuta  sit  verbis  quae  sum¬ 
mum  sacerdotium  declarent. 
Sane,  nihil  huc  attinet  ex¬ 
plorare,  utrum  episcopatus 
complementum  sit  sacer¬ 
dotii,  an  ordo  ab  illo  dis¬ 
tinctus  :  aut  collatus,  ut 
aiunt,  per  saltum ,  scilicet 
homini  non  sacerdoti, 
utrum  effectum  habeat 
necne.  At  ipse  procul  du¬ 
bio,  ex  institutione  Christi, 
ad  sacramentum  Ordinis 
verissime  pertinet,  atque 
est  praecellenti  gradu  sac¬ 
erdotium  ;  quod  nimirum 
et  voce  sanctorum  Patrum 
et  rituali  nostra  consuetu- 


the  same  Ordinal.  For,  to 
put  aside  other  reasons 
which  show  this  to  be  in¬ 
sufficient  for  the  purpose  in 
the  Anglican  rite,  let  this 
argument  suffice  for  all, 
that  from  them  has  been 
deliberately  removed  what¬ 
ever  set  forth  the  dignity 
and  office  of  the  priesthood 
in  the  Catholic  rite.  That 
form  consequently  ought 
not  to  be  considered  apt  or 
sufficient  for  the  sacrament 
which  omits  what  it  ought 
essentially  to  signify. 

It  is  the  same  with  regard 
to  episcopal  consecration. 
To  the  form  “  Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost ”  the  words 
“  for  the  office  and  work 
of  a  Bishop  ”  were  added 
at  a  later  period ;  but 
even  these  words,  as  We 
shall  presently  show,  must 
be  understood  in  a  sense  dif¬ 
ferent  from  that  which  they 
bear  in  the  Catholic  rite. 
Nor  is  there  any  thing  gain¬ 
ed  by  quoting  “  Almighty 
God,”  since  it  in  like  man¬ 
ner  has  been  stripped  of  the 
words  which  denote  the 
High  Priesthood.  It  is  not 
here  relevant  to  examine 
whether  the  episcopate  be 


Anglican  Orders. 


26 


dine  summum  sacerdotium , 
sacri  ministerii  summa 
nuncupatur.  Inde  fit  ut, 
quoniam  sacramentum  Or¬ 
dinis  verumque  Christi  sa¬ 
cerdotium  a  ritu  anglicano 
penitus  extrusum  est,  atque 
adeo  in  consecratione  episc¬ 
opali  eiusdem  ritus  nullo 
modo  sacerdotium  confer¬ 
tur,  nullo  item  modo  episco¬ 
patus  vere  ac  iure  possit 
conferri:  eoque  id  magis 
quia  in  primis  episcopatus 
muniis  illud  scilicet  est, 
minstros  ordinandi  in  sanc¬ 
tam  Eucharistiam  et  sa¬ 
crificium. 

Ad  rectam  vero  plenamque 
Ordinalis  anglicani  aesti¬ 
mationem,  praeter  ista  per 
aliquas  eius  partes  notata, 
nihil  profecto  tam  valet 
quam  si  probe  aestimetur 
quibus  adiunctis  rerum 
conditum  sit  et  publice 
constitutum.  Longum  est 
singula  persequi,  neque  est 
necessarium  :  eius  namque 
aetatis  memoria  satis  di¬ 
serte  loquitur,  cuius  animi 


a  completion  of  the  priest¬ 
hood  or  an  order  distinct 
from  it,  or  whether  when 
bestowed  as  they  say  per 
saltum  on  one  who  is  not  a 
priest,  it  has  or  has  not  its 
effect.  But  the  episcopate 
undoubtedly  by  the  institu¬ 
tion  of  Christ  most  truly 
belongs  to  the  sacrament  of 
Orders,  and  constitutes  the 
priesthood  in  the  highest 
degree — namely, that  which 
by  the  teachings  of  the 
holy  Fathers  and  our  Lit¬ 
urgical  customs  is  called  the 
Summum  Sacerdotium ,  Sa¬ 
cri  Ministerii  Summa. — 
[“The  High  Priesthood, 
the  Fullness  of  the  Sacred 
Ministry.”]  Thus  we  find 
that,  as  the  Sacrament  of 
Orders  and  the  true  priest¬ 
hood  of  Christ  were 
utterly  eliminated  from 
the  Anglican  rite,  and 
hence  the  priesthood  is  in 
no  wise  conferred  truly  and 
validly  in  the  episcopal  con¬ 
secration  of  the  same  rite, 
for  the  like  reason,  there¬ 
fore,  the  episcopate  can  in 
no  way  be  truly  and  validly 
conferred  by  it,  and  this 
the  more  so  because  among 
the  duties  of  the  episcopate 


Apostolic  Letter. 


27 


essent  in  Ecclesiam  catho¬ 
licam  auctores  Ordinalis, 
quos  adsciverint  fautores 
ab  heterodoxis  sectis,  quo 
demum  consilia  sua  refer¬ 
rent  Nimis  enimvero  sci¬ 
entes  quae  necessitudo  in¬ 
ter  fidem  et  cultum,  inter 
legem  credendi  et  legem 
supplicandi  intercedat,  lit- 
urgiae  ordinem,  specie  qui¬ 
dem  redintegrandae  eius 
formae  primaevae,  ad  er¬ 
rores  Novatorum  multis 
modis  deformarunt.  Qua- 
mobrem  toto  Ordinali  non 
modo  nulla  est  aperta 
mentio  sacrificii,  conse¬ 
crationis,  sacerdotii,  po¬ 
testatisque  consecrandi  et 
sacrificii  offerendi ;  sed 
immo  omnia  huiusmodi 
rerum  vestigia,  quae  su- 
peressent  in  precationibus 
ritus  catholici  non  plane  re- 
iectis,  sublata  et  deleta  sunt 
de  industria,  quod  supra  at¬ 
tigimus.  Ita  per  se  apparet 
nativa  Ordinalis  indoles  ac 
spiritus,  uti  loquuntur. 
Hinc  vero  ab  origine  ducto 


is  that  of  ordaining  minis¬ 
ters  for  the  Holy  Eucha¬ 
ristic  Sacrifice. 

For  the  accurate  and 
full  understanding  of  the 
Anglican  Ordinal,  besides 
what  we  have  noted  as  to 
some  of  its  parts,  it  is 
worthy  of  note  to  consider 
carefully  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  com¬ 
posed  and  publicly  author¬ 
ized.  It  would  be  tedious 
to  enter  into  details,  nor  is 
it  necessary  to  do  so,  as  the 
history  of  that  time  is  suf¬ 
ficiently  eloquent  as  to  the 
animus  of  the  authors  of 
the  Ordinal  against  the 
Catholic  Church,  as  to  the 
abettors  whom  they  associ¬ 
ated  with  themselves  from 
the  heterodox  sects,  and  as 
to  the  end  they  had  in 
view.  Being  fully  aware 
of  the  necessary  connection 
between  faith  and  worship, 
between  the  law  of  believ¬ 
ing  and  the  law  of  praying, 
under  a  pretext  of  return¬ 
ing  to  the  primitive  form, 
they  corrupted  in  many 
ways  the  liturgical  order  to 
suit  the  errors  of  the  re¬ 
formers.  For  this  reason  in 
the  whole  Ordinal  not  only 
is  there  no  clear  mention  of 
the  Sacrifice,  of  consecra¬ 
tion  to  the  priesthood  and 
of  the  power  of  consecrat¬ 
ing  and  offering  sacrifices, 
but,  as  We  have  just  stated, 


28 


Anglican  Orders. 


vitio,  si  valere  ad  usum  or¬ 
dinationum  minime  potuit, 
nequaquam  decursu  aeta¬ 
tum,  quum  tale  ipsum  per¬ 
manserit,  futurum  fuit  ut 
valeret  Atque  ii  egerunt 
frustra  qui  inde  a  tempori¬ 
bus  Caroli  I.  conati  sunt 
admittere  aliquid  sacrificii 
et  sacerdotii,  nonnulli  dein 
ad  Ordinale  facta  acces¬ 
sione  :  frustraque  similiter 
contendit  pars  ea  Anglica- 
norum  non  ita  magna,  re- 
centiore  tempore  coalita, 
quae  arbitratur  posse  idem 
Ordinale  ad  sanam  rectam- 
que  sententiam  intelligi  et 
deduci.  Vana,  inquimus, 
fuere  et  sunt  buiusmodi  co¬ 
nata:  idque  hac  etiam  de 
causa,  quod,  si  qua  quidem 
verba,  in  Ordinali  anglicano 
ut  nunc  est,  porrigant  se  in 
ambiguum,  ea  tamen  su¬ 
mere  sensum  eumdem  ne¬ 
queunt  quem  habent  in 
ritu  catholico.  Nam  semel 
novato  ritu,  ut  vidimus,  quo 
nempe  negetur  vel  adulte¬ 
retur  sacramentum  Ordinis, 


every  trace  of  these  things, 
which  had  been  in  such 
prayers  of  the  Catholic  rite 
as  they  had  not  entirely  re¬ 
jected,  was  deliberately  re¬ 
moved  and  struck  out  In 
this  way  the  native  charac¬ 
ter,  or  spirit,  as  it  is  called, 
of  the  Ordinal  clearly  mani¬ 
fests  itself.  Hence  if  viti¬ 
ated  in  its  origin  it  was 
wholly  insufficient  to  con¬ 
fer  Orders.  It  was  impos¬ 
sible  that  in  the  course  of 
time  it  would  become  suffi¬ 
cient,  since  no  change  had 
taken  place.  In  vain  those 
who  from  the  time  of  Charles 
I.  have  attempted  to  hold 
some  kind  of  sacrifice  or 
of  priesthood  have  made 
some  additions  to  the  Or¬ 
dinal.  In  vain  also  has 
been  the  contention  of  that 
small  section  of  the  Angli¬ 
can  body,  formed  in  recent 
times,  that  the  said  Ordinal 
can  be  understood  and  in¬ 
terpreted  in  a  sound  and 
orthodox  sense.  Such 
efforts  we  affirm  have  been 
and  are  made  in  vain,  and 
for  this  reason  that  any 
words  in  the  Anglican 
ordinal,  as  it  now  is,  which 
lend  themselves  to  am¬ 
biguity,  cannot  be  taken  in 
the  same  sense  as  they  pos¬ 
sess  in  the  Catholic  rite. 
For  once  a  new  rite  has  been 
instituted  in  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  Sacrament 


Apostolic  Letter. 


39 


et  a  quo  quaevis  notio  re¬ 
pudiata  sit  consecrationis  et 
sacrificii  ;  iam  minime  con¬ 
stat  formula,  Accipe  Spiri¬ 
tum  Sanctum ,  qui  Spiritus, 
cum  gratia  nimirum  sacra¬ 
menti,  in  animam  infundi¬ 
tur  ;  minimeque  constant 
verba  illa,  ad  officium  et 
opus  presbyteri  vel  episcopi 
ac  similia,  quae  restant 
nomina  sine  re  quam  insti¬ 
tuit  Christus.  Huius  vim 
argumenti  perspectam  ipsi 
habent  plerique  Anglicani, 
observantiores  Ordinalis  in¬ 
terpretes  ;  quam  non  dis¬ 
simulanter  eis  obiiciunt  qui 
nove  ipsum  interpretantes, 
Ordinibus  inde  collatis  pre¬ 
tium  virtutemque  non  suam 
spe  vana  affingunt.  Eodem 
porro  argumento  vel  uno 
illud  etiam  corruit,  opinan¬ 
tium  posse  in  legitimam 
Ordinis  formam  sufficere 
precationem,  Omnipotens 
Deus ,  bonorum  omnium 
largitor ,  quae  sub  initium 
est  ritualis  actionis ;  eti¬ 
amsi  forte  haberi  ea 


of  Orders  is  adulterated  or 
denied,  and  from  which  all 
idea  of  consecration  and 
sacrifice  has  been  rejected, 
the  formula,  Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost ,  no  longer 
holds  good,  because  the 
Spirit  is  infused  into  the 
soul  with  the  grace  of  the 
Sacrament ;  and  the  words 
for  the  office  and  work  of  a 
Priest  or  bishop ,  and  the 
like,  no  longer  hold  good, 
but  remain  as  words  with¬ 
out  the  reality  which  Christ 
instituted.  Several  of  the 
more  shrewd  Anglican  in¬ 
terpreters  of  the  Ordinal 
have  perceived  the  force  of 
this  argument,  and  they 
openly  urge  it  against  those 
who  take  the  Ordinal  in  a 
new  sense,  and  vainly  at¬ 
tach  to  the  Orders  conferred 
thereby  a  value  and  effi¬ 
ciency  they  do  not  possess. 
By  this  same  argument  is 
refuted  the  contention  of 
those  who  think  that  the 
prayer  “ Almighty  God 
giver  of  all  good  things ,” 
which  is  found  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  the  ritual  action, 
might  suffice  as  a  legitimate 
form  of  Orders,  even  in 
the  hypothesis  that  it  might 


30 


Anglican  Ordeis. 


posset  tamquam  sufficiens 
in  ritu  aliquo  catholico 
quem  Ecclesia  probasset. 
Cum  hoc  igitur  intimo 
formae  defectu  coniunctus 
est  defectus  intentionis , 
quam  aeque  necessario 
postulat,  ut  sit,  sacramen¬ 
tum.  De  mente  vel  intenti¬ 
one,  utpote  quae  per  se 
quiddam  est  interius,  Ec¬ 
clesia  non  iudicat :  at  quate¬ 
nus  extra  proditur,  iudicare 
de  ea  debet.  Iamvero  quum 
quis  ad  sacramentum  confi¬ 
ciendum  et  conferendum 
materiam  formamque  debi¬ 
tam  serio  ac  rite  abhibuit, 
eo  ipso  censetur  id  nimirum 
facere  intendisse  quod  facit 
Ecclesia.  Quo  sane  princi¬ 
pio,  innititur  doctrina  quae 
tenet  esse  vere  sacramentum 
vel  illud,  quod  ministerio 
hominis  haeretici  aut  non 
baptizati,  dummodo  ritu 
catholico,  conferatur.  Con¬ 
tra,  si  ritus  immutetur,  eo 
manifesto  consilio  ut  alius 
inducatur  ab  Ecclesia  non 
receptus,  utque  id  repellatur 


be  held  to  be  sufficient  in  a 
Catholic  rite  approved  by 
the  Church.  With  this  in¬ 
herent  defect  of  form  is 
joined  the  defect  oj  inten¬ 
tion ,  which  is  usually  essen¬ 
tial  to  the  Sacraments.  The 
Church  does  not  judge 
about  the  mind  and  inten¬ 
tion  in  so  far  as  it  is  some¬ 
thing  by  its  nature  internal, 
but  in  so  far  as  it  is  mani¬ 
fested  externally  she  is 
bound  to  judge  concerning 
it.  When  any  one  has 
rightly  and  seriously  made 
use  of  due  form  and  the 
matter  requisite  for  effect¬ 
ing  or  conferring  the  Sacra¬ 
ment,  he  is  considered  by  the 
very  fact  to  do  what  the 
Church  does.  On  this  prin¬ 
ciple  rests  the  doctrine  that 
a  Sacrament  is  truly  confer¬ 
red  by  the  ministry  of  one 
who  is  a  heretic  or  unbap¬ 
tized  provided  the  Catholic 
rite  be  employed.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  the  rite  be 
changed  with  the  manifest 
intention  of  introducing 
another  rite  not  approved 
by  the  Church, and  of  reject¬ 
ing  what  the  Church  does, 
and  what  by  the  institution 
of  Christ  belongs  to  the 


Apostolic  Eetter. 


31 


quod  facit  Ecclesia  et  quod 
ex  institutione  Christi  ad 
naturam  attinet  sacramenti, 
tunc  palam  est,  non  solum 
necessariam  sacramento  in¬ 
tentionem  deesse,  sed  inten¬ 
tionem  immo  haberi  sacra¬ 
mento  adversam  et  repug¬ 
nantem. 

Isthaec  omnia  diu  mul¬ 
tumque  reputavimus  apud 
Nos  et  cum  Venerabilibus 
Fratribus  Nostris  in 
Suprema  iudicibus  ;  quo¬ 
rum  etiam  Coetum  singu¬ 
lariter  coram  Nobis  advo¬ 
care  placuit  feria  V.,  die 
XVI.  iulii  proximi,  in  com¬ 
memoratione  Mariae  D.  N. 
Carmelitidis.  I i  q  u e  ad 
unum  consensere,  proposi¬ 
tam  causam  iam  pridem  ab 
Apostolica  Sede  plene 
fuisse  et  cognitam  et  iudi- 
catam :  eius  autem  denuo 
instituta  act&que  quaes¬ 
tione,  emersisse  illustrius 
quanta  illa  iustitiae  sapi¬ 
entiaeque  pondere  totam 
rem  absolvisset.  Verumta- 
men  optimum  factu  duxi- 


nature  of  the  Sacrament, 
then,  it  is  clear  that 
not  only  i  s  the  neces¬ 
sary  intention  wanting 
to  the  Sacrament,  but 
that  the  intention  is  ad¬ 
verse  to  and  destructive  of 
the  Sacrament. 

All  these  matters  have 
been  long  and  carefully 
considered  by  Ourselves 
and  by  Our  venerable 
brethren,  the  Judges  of  the 
Supreme  Council,  of  whom 
it  has  pleased  Us  to  call  a 
special  meeting  on  Thurs¬ 
day,  the  1 6th  day  of  July 
last,  feast  of  the  Solemnity 
of  Our  Eady  of  Mount  Car¬ 
mel.  They,  with  one  ac¬ 
cord,  agreed  that  the  ques¬ 
tion  laid  before  them  had 
been  adjudicated  upon  with 
fiull  knowledge  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  and  that  this 
renewed  discussion  and  ex¬ 
amination  of  the  issue  had 
only  served  to  bring  out 
more  clearly  the  wisdom 
and  accuracy  with  which 
that  decision  had  been 
made.  Nevertheless,  We 
deemed  it  well  to  postpone 
a  decision,  in  order  to  afford 
time  both  to  consider 
whether  it  would  be  fitting 


32 


Anglican  Orders. 


mus  supersedere  sententiae, 
quo  et  melius  perpendere¬ 
mus  conveniret  ne  expedi- 
retque  eamdem  rem  aucto¬ 
ritate  Nostra  rursus  decla¬ 
rari,  et  uberiorem  di¬ 
vini  luminis  copiam  sup¬ 
plices  imploraremus. 
Tum  considerantibus 
Nobis  ut  idem  caput  dis¬ 
ciplinae,  etsi  iure  iam  defi¬ 
nitum,  a  quibusdam  revoca¬ 
tum  sit  in  controversiam, 
quacumque  demum  causa 
sit  revocatum  ;  ex  eoque 
pronum  fore  ut  perniciosus 
error  gignatur  non  paucis 
qui  putent  se  ibi  Ordinis 
sacramentum  et  fructus  re- 
perire  ubi  minime  sunt, 
visum  est  in  Domino  sen¬ 
tentiam  Nostram  edicere. 

Itaque  omnibus  Pontifi¬ 
cum  Decessorum  in  hac 
ipsa  causa  decretis  usque¬ 
quaque  assentientes,  eaque 
plenissime  confirmantes  ac 
veluti  renovantes  auctori¬ 
tate  Nostra,  motu  proprio 
certia  scientia;  pronuncia- 
mus  et  declaramus,  Ordina- 


or  expedient  that  We 
should  make  a  fresh  au¬ 
thoritative  declaration  upon 
the  matter,  and  to  humbly 
pray  for  a  fuller  measure 
of  Divine  guidance.  Then, 
considering  that  this  mat¬ 
ter  of  practice,  although 
already  decided,  had  been 
by  certain  persons  for 
whatever  reasons  recalled 
into  discussion,  and  that 
thence  it  might  follow  that 
a  pernicious  error  would  be 
fostered  in  the  minds  of 
many,  who  might  suppose 
that  they  possessed  the 
Sacraments  and  effects  of 
Orders  where  those  are  no¬ 
wise  to  be  found,  it  has 
seemed  good  to  Us  in  the 
Uord  to  pronounce  Our 
judgment. 

Wherefore,  strictly  a  d  - 
hering  in  this  matter  to  the 
decrees  of  the  Pontiffs, 
Our  predecessors,  and  con¬ 
firming  them  more  fully, 
and  as  it  were,  renewing 
them  by  Our  authority,  of 
Our  own  free  will  and 
from  certain  knowledge, 
We  pronounce  and  declare 
that  Ordinations  carried  out 
according  to  the  Anglican 
rites,  have  been,  and  are 


Apostolic  Iyetter. 


33 


tiones  ritu  anglicano  actas, 
irritas  prorsus  fuisse  et  esse, 
omninoque  nullas. 

Hoc  restat,  ut  quo  in¬ 
gressi  sumus  Pastoris  magni 
nomine  et  animo  veritatem 
tam  gravis  rei  certissimam 
commonstrare,  eodem  ad- 
hortemur  eos  qui  Ordinum 
atque  beneficia  sincera  vol¬ 
untate  optent  ac  requirant 
Usque  adhuc  fortasse,  vir¬ 
tutis  christianae  intendentes 
ardorem,  religiosius  consul¬ 
entes  divinas  litteras  pias 
duplicantes  preces,  incerti 
tamen  haeserunt  et  anxii  ad 
vocem  Christi  iamdiu  intime 
admonentis.  Probe  iam  vid¬ 
ent  quo  se  bonus  ille  invitet 
ac  velit.  Ad  unicum  eius 
ovile  si  redeant,  tum  vero 
et  quaesita  beneficia  asse¬ 
cuturi  sunt  et  consequentia 
salutis  praesidia,  quorum 
administram  fecit  ipse  Ec¬ 
clesiam,  quasi  redemptionis 
suae  custodem  perpetuam 
et  procuratricem  in  genti¬ 
bus.  Tum  vero  haurient 
aquas  in  gaudio  de  Jontibus 


absolutely  null  and  utterly 
void.  It  remains  for  Us 
to  say  that  even  as  We 
have  entered  upon  the 
elucidation  of  this  grave 
question  in  the  name  and 
in  the  love  of  the  Great 
Shepherd,  in  the  same  we 
appeal  to  those  who  desire 
and  seek  with  a  sincere 
heart  the  possession  of  a 
hierarchy  and  of  Orders. 
Perhaps,  until  now,  aiming 
at  the  greater  perfection  of 
Christian  virtue,  and 
searching  more  devoutly 
the  Divine  Scriptures,  and 
redoubling  the  fervor  of 
their  prayers,  they  have 
nevertheless  hesitated  in 
doubt  and  anxiety  to  follow 
the  voice  of  Christ,  which 
has  so  long  interiorly  ad¬ 
monished  them.  Now,  they 
see  clearly  whither  He  in 
His  goodness  invited  them, 
and  wills  them  to  come.  In 
xeturning  to  His  one  only 
fold  they  will  obtain  the 
blessings  which  they  seek, 
and  the  consequent  helps  to 
salvation  of  which  He  has 
made  the  Church  the  dis¬ 
penser,  and,  as  it  were,  the 
constant  guardian  and  pro¬ 
moter  of  His  Redemption 


34 


Anglican  Orders. 


Salvatoris ,  sacramentis  eius 
mirificis  ;  unde  fideles  ani¬ 
mae  in  amicitiam  Dei, 
remissis  vere  peccatis,  resti¬ 
tuuntur,  caelesti  pane  al- 
unttir  et  roborantur,  adiu- 
mentisque  maximisaffluunt 
ad  vitae  adeptionem  aeter¬ 
nae.  Quorum  bonorum  re¬ 
vera  sitientes,  utinam  Deus 
pacis,  Deus  totius  consolati- 

i 

onis  facit  compotes  atque 
expleat  perbenignus.  Hort¬ 
ationem  vero  Nostram  et 
vota  eos  maiorem  in  modum 
spectare  volumus, qui  religi¬ 
onis  ministri  in  communi¬ 
ta  t  i  b  u  s  suis  habentur. 
Homines  ex  ipso  officio 
praecedentes  doctrina  et 
auctoritate,  quibus  profecto 
cordi  est  divina  gloria  et 
animarum  salus,  velint 
alacres  vocanti  Deo  parere 
in  primis  et  obsequi,  prae¬ 
ciarumque  de  se  edere  ex¬ 
emplum.  Singulari  certe 
laetitia  eos  Ecclesia  mater 
excipiet  omnique  complec¬ 
tetur  bonitate  et  providen¬ 
tia,  quippe  quos  per  arduas 


among  the  nations.  Then, 
indeed,  “  they  shall  draw 
waters  in  joy  from  the  foun¬ 
tains  of  the  Savior,”  His 
wondrous  sacraments, 
whereby  His  faithful  souls- 
have  their  sins  truly  remit¬ 
ted  and  are  restored  to  the 
friendship  of  God,  are  nour¬ 
ished  and  strengthened  by 
the  Heavenly  Bread,  and 
abound  with  the  most 
powerful  aids  for  their  eter¬ 
nal  salvation.  May  the  God 
of  peace,  the  God  of  all 
consolation,  in  His  infinite 
tenderness  enrich  and  fill 
with  these  blessings  those 
who  truly  yearn  for  them. 
We  wish  to  direct  Our  ex¬ 
hortation  and  Our  desires 
in  a  special  way  to  those 
who  are  ministers  of  re¬ 
ligion  in  their  respective 
communities.  They  are 
men  who  from  their  very 
office  take  precedence  in 
learning  and  authority,  and 
who  have  at  heart  the  glory 
of  God  and  the  salvation  of 
souls. 

Eet  them  be  the  first  in 
joyfully  submitting  to  the 
Divine  call,  and  obey  it  and 
furnish  a  glorious  example 
to  others.  Assuredly  with 


Apostolic  Letter. 


35 


rerum  difficultates  virtus 
animi  generosior  ad  sinum 
suum  reduxerit.  Ex  hac 
vero  virtute  dici  vix  potest 
quae  ipsos  laus  maneat  in 
coetibus  fratrum  per  catho¬ 
licum  orbem,  quae  ali¬ 
quando  spes  et  fiducia  ante 
Christum  iudicem,  quae  ab 
illo  praemia  in  regno  cae¬ 
lesti  !  Nos  quidem,  quant¬ 
um  omni  ope  licuerit,  eorum 
cum  Ecclesia  reconcili¬ 
ationem  fovere  non  desiste¬ 
mus;  ex  qua  et  singuli  et 
ordines,  id  quod  vehementer 
cupimus,  multum  capere 
possunt  ad  imitendum. 
Interea  veritatis  grati¬ 
aeque  divinae  patentem 
cursum  ut  secundare 
contendant  fideliter,  per 
viscera  misericordiae  Dei 
nostri  rogamus  omnes  et 
obsecramus. 

Praesentes  vero  litteras  et 
quaecumque  in  ipsis  haben¬ 
tur  nullo  unquam  tempore 
de  subreptionis  aut  obrep¬ 
tionis  sive  intentionis  Nos¬ 
trae  vitio  aliove  quovis  de¬ 


an  exceeding  great  joy  their 
mother  the  Church  will 
welcome  them,  and  will 
cherish  with  all  her  love 
and  care  those  whom  the 
strength  of  their  generous 
souls  has  amidst  many 
trials  and  difficulties  led 
back  to  her  bosom.  Nor 
could  words  express  the 
recognition  which  this  de¬ 
voted  courage  will  win  for 
them  from  the  assemblies 
of  the  brethren  throughout 
the  Catholic  world,  or  what 
hope  or  confidence  it  will 
merit  for  them  before  Christ 
as  their  Judge,  or  what  re¬ 
ward  it  will  obtain  from 
Him  in  the  Heavenly 
Kingdom.  And  We  Our¬ 
selves  in  every  lawful  way 
shall  continue  to  promote 
their  reconciliation  with  the 
Church  in  which  indivi¬ 
duals  and  masses,  as  we  ar¬ 
dently  desire,  may  find  so 
mueh  for  their  imitation.  In 
the  meantime,  by  the  ten¬ 
der  mercy  of  the  Lord  Our 
God,  We  ask  and  beseech 
all  to  strive  faithfully  to 
follow  in  the  open  path  of 
Divine  grace  and  truth. 

We  decree  that  these  Let¬ 
ters  and  all  things  contained 


36 


Anglican  Orders. 


fectu  notari  vel  impugnari 
posse;  sed  semper  validas 
et  in  suo  robore  fore  et  esse, 
atque  ab  omnibus  cuiusvis 
gradus  et  praeeminentiae 
inviolabiliter  in  iudicio  et 
extra  observari  debere  de¬ 
cernimus  ;  irritum  quoque 
et  inane  si  secus  super  his  a 
quoquam, quavis  auctoritate 
vel  praetextu,  scienter  vel 
ignoranter  contigerit  atten¬ 
tari  declarantes,  contrariis 
non  obstantibus  quibus¬ 
cumque. 

Volumus  autem  ut  harum 
litterarum  exemplis,  etiam 
impressis,  manu  tamen  No¬ 
tarii  subscriptis  et  per  con¬ 
stitutum  in  ecclesiastica 
dignitate  virum  sigillo 
munitis,  eadem  habea¬ 
tur  fides  quae  Nostrae 
voluntatis  significationi  his 
praesentibus  ostensis  habe¬ 
retur. 

Datum  Romae  apud  Sanc¬ 
tum  Petrum  anno  Incarna¬ 
tionis  Dominicae  millesimo 
octingentesimo  nonagesimo 
sexto,  idibus  Septembribus, 


therein  shall  not  be  liable  at 
any  time  to  be  impugned  or 
objected  toby  reason  of  fault 
or  any  other  defect  whatso¬ 
ever  of  subreption  or  obrep- 
tion,  or  of  Our  intention, 
but  are  and  shall  be  always 
valid  and  in  force,  and  shall 
be  inviolably  observed  both 
juridically  and  otherwise, 
by  all  of  whatsoever  degree 
and  pre-eminence, declaring 
null  and  void  anything 
which  in  these  matters  may 
happen  to  be  contrariwise 
attempted,  whether  wit¬ 
tingly  or  unwittingly,  by 
any  person  whatsoever,  by 
whatsoever  authority  or 
pretext,  all  things  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding. 

We  will  that  there  shall 
be  given  to  copies  of  these 
Letters,  even  printed,  pro¬ 
vided  that  they  be  signed 
by  a  notary  and  sealed  by  a 
person  constituted  in  eccle¬ 
siastical  dignity,  the  same 
credence  that  would  be 
given  to  the  expression  of 
Our  will  by  the  showing  of 
these  presents. 

Given  at  Rome,  at  St. 
Peter’s,  in  the  year  of  the 
Incarnation  of  Our  Lord, 
one  thousand  eight  hundred 


Apostolic  Letter. 


37 


Pontificatus  Nostri  anno 
decimo  nono, 
t  C  Card.  De  RVGGIERO. 
t  A  Card.  Bianchi, 
Pro-Datarius. 

Pisa. 

De  Cvria  I.  De  Aqvila, 
E  Vicecomitibus. 
Loco  ^  Plumbi 
Reg.  in  Secret.  Brevium. 

I.  Cvgnonl 


and  ninety-six,  on  the  Ides 
of  September,  in  the  nine¬ 
teenth  year  of  Our  Pontifi¬ 
cate. 

t  C.  Card.  De  RUGGIERO, 
f  A.  Card.  Bianci, 
Pro-Datarius. 

( Visa.)  J.  Della,  Aquila, 
[Seal.]  Visconti. 

Registered  in  the  Secre¬ 
tariate  of  Briefs. 

J.  CUGNONL 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  BULL  “APO- 
STOLICAE  CURAE” 

Declaring  Null  and  Void  the  Rite  of  Ordina¬ 
tion  Used  in  the  Anglican  Church. 

I.-INTRODUCTORY. 

Public  Opinion  in  England  Regarding  the  Bull. 

On  September  8,  1896,  the  Feast  of  the  Nativity  of 
the  Blesed  Virgin  Mary,  was  published  the  Bull 
“  Apostolicae  Curae  ”  in  which  our  Holy  Father,  Leo 
XIII.,  “  motu  proprio  certa  scientia ,”  pronounced  and 
declared  that  “  ordinations  performed  according  to  the 
Anglican  rite  have  been  and  are  altogether  invalid  and 
absolutely  null :  “  Pronuntiamus  et  declaramus  ordina¬ 
tiones  ritu  anglicano  pactas ,  irritas  prorsus  fuisse  et  esse 
omninoque  nullas .” 

As  might  have  been  expected,  this  solemn  and  final 
decision,  dreaded  by  a  few  but  desired  by  many,  has 
excited  much  comment  in  England.  On  the  side  of 
English  Catholics  it  has  been  received  with  unanimous 
applause,  and  with  every  expression  of  the  sincerest 
satisfaction  and  gratitude.  It  has  afforded  much  con¬ 
solation  to  all,  but  more  especially  to  those  converts 
who  of  |late  years  have  abandoned  Anglicanism,  and 
returned  to  the  full  and  perfect  obedience  of  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  in  the  true  and  only  fold  of  Christ.1 

The  false  and  painful  position  created  for  them  by 
the  recent  polemics  is  henceforth  at  an  end :  the  Bull  of 
Leo  XIII.,  while  it  fully  justifies  their  past  action,  gives 

i  From  the  conversion  of  Cardinal  Newman  to  our  own  days  there 
have  been  over  500  converts  from  the  ranks  of  the  Anglican  ministry. 

(38) 


Commentary  on  the  Bull  “Apostolicae  Curae.”  39 


them  renewed  energy  and  spurs  them  on  to  other  and 
greater  undertakings  in  behalf  of  those  among  their 
compatriots  who  are  still  separated  from  the  centre  of 
Catholic  unity.  The  London  Tablet ,  the  official  organ 
of  English  Catholics,  speaks  as  follows  of  the  Pontifical 
Bull : 

“  In  the  face  of  this  document  of  the  Holy  See,  our  first 
duty  is  to  express  our  filial  gratitude  to  the  Vicar  of  Christ 
for  the  fatherly  zeal  wherewith  he  has  vouchsafed  to  put  an 
end  to  the  weighty  and  important  question  ot  Anglican 
Orders ;  for  the  elaborate  and  minute  carefulness  with  which  he 
has^tudied  it ;  for  the  charity  and  fairness  he  has  displayed  in 
the  various  phases  of  the  controversy;  and  in  fine  for  the 
truly  Apostolic  uprightness  of  intention  and  the  wonderful 
clearness  with  which  he  has  delivered  his  supreme  and  final 
judgment  in  the  matter.  We  are  sure  that  the  gratitude  to 
which  we  give  expression  will  be  shared  not  only  by  the  Ca¬ 
tholics  of  England  and  English-speaking  countries,  but  also 
by  those  of  the  whole  world.”1 

The  Catholic  Truth  Congress  at  Hanley  echoed  the 
sentiments  of  the  Tablet ,  and  at  its  first  meeting  on 
September  28,  presided  over  by  H.  E.  Cardinal  Vaughan, 
moved,  amid  universal  acclamations,  a  vote  of  thanks  to 
the  Holy  Father,  founded  on  the  same  reasons. 

Furthermore,  the  English  press  has  for  the  most 
part  received  the  Papal  document  with  respect  and 
cordiality,  printing  it  at  length  and  with  comments  and 
acknowledging  frankly  that  no  one  who  believes  and 
accepts  Catholic  doctrine  can  fail  to  appreciate  the 
justice  of  the  Pope’s  decision. 

The  View  Which  English  Protestants  Take  of 

the  Bull. 

In  the  same  sense  speak  the  English  Protestants  of 
the  Erastian  school,  who  constitute  by  far  the  majority 


i  Tablet ,  Sept  26,  1896. 


40 


Anglican  Orders. 


of  the  Anglican  Church.  For  even  they,  while 
showing  a  certain  indifference  with  respect  to  the 
Papal  document,  profess  themselves  pleased  with  its 
publication,  and  glad  to  find  themselves  at  one  with 
the  Pope  in  defending  a  truth  so  firmly  supported  by 
history,  namely,  that  it  was  always  the  declared  and 
explicit  intention  of  the  English  Reformers  of  the  XVI. 
century  to  exclude  the  Catholic  priesthood  and  Sacrifice 
from  their  Church,  absolutely  and  entirely.  For  example, 
let  us  hear  what  the  Rock /  the  spokesman  of  their  school, 
says  upon  the  subject : 

“The  Pope  has  spoken  on  the  question  of  the  Anglican 
Ordinations  with  a  promptness  and  determination  which  many 
did  not  expect  .  .  .We  are  fully  in  accord  with  the 

Pope  in  this  matter,  and  we  can  subscribe  to  almost  all  his 
arguments.  It  is  precisely  what  we  have  always  held,  namely, 
that  by  the  Reformation  the  heads  of  the  Church  of  England 
deliberately  and  effectively  separated  from  the  Church  of 
Rome,  repudiated  her  teaching  on  the  Priesthood  and  on  the 
Episcopacy,  and  therefore  in  the  ordination  they  never  had 
any  intention  of  conferring  the  Priesthood ,  since  they  con¬ 
sidered  Sacerdotalism  an  injury  to  the  Priesthood  of  Christ, 
without  foundation  in  the  Scriptures,  and  repugnant  to  all  the 
cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.’  ’ 

The  Exeter  Western  Times ,1 2  after  having  in  a  remark¬ 
able  article  censured  severely  the  novelties  of  certain 
Anglicans  “  who  desire  at  all  costs  to  ape  the  Church 
of  Rome,”  observes  that  the  Pope  has  said  in  his  Bull 
just  what  he  ought  to  have  said,  that  he  shows  a  perfect 
appreciation  of  the  genius  of  the  English  Reformation, 
in  virtue  of  whose  principles  there  does  not  and  cannot 
exist  a  sacrificing  priesthood  in  the  Anglican  Church. 
The  writer  concludes  with  the  following  noteworthy 
words:  “If  any  disastrous  consequence  is  to  follow 

1  Sept  25,  1896.  “  Poor  Lord  Halifax .” 

2  September  26, 1896. 


Commentary  on  the  Bull  “Apostolicae  Curae.”  41 


from  the  publication  of  the  Pontifical  Bull,  the  disaster 
will  not  be  due  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  to 
those  who  have  departed  from  the  principles  of  the 
Reformation.” 

The  Anglicans  of  this  school  are  for  the  most  part 
altogether  in  good  faith,  albeit  full  of  old-fashioned  pre¬ 
judices  against  the  Pope  and  the  Church  of  Rome.  At 
all  events  it  may  be  said  to  their  praise  that,  in  rejecting 
priesthood  and  sacrifice,  they  are  consistent  with  the 
principles  on  which  their  Church  is  founded.  For  this 
same  Church,  in  the  Thirty-first  of  its  Articles ,  professes 
and  teaches  its  members  to  hold  firmly  that :  “  the 
Sacrifices  of  Masses ,  in  the  which  it  was  commonly 
said,  that  the  priest  did  offer  Christ  for  the  quick  and 
the  dead,  to  have  remission  of  pain  or  guilt,  were  blas¬ 
phemous  fables  and  dangerous  deceits. m 

[It  may  be  in  place  to  add  here  that  this  view  has 
been  decidedly  confirmed  by  the  vague  and  unsatisfac¬ 
tory  document  intended  as  a  reply  to  the  Bull  by  the 
Anglican  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York. 

The  Ven.  Archdeacon  Taylor,  of  Liverpool,  writes 
about  this  reply  in  the  English  Churchman  as  follows : 

“  With  all  due  respect  for  the  eminent  prelates  who 
have  sent  it  forth,  I  cannot  but  regard  it  as  altogether 
unsatisfactory  and  unworthy  of  the  occasion.  Far  bet¬ 
ter  to  have  left  the  Bull  unanswered  altogether.  .  .  . 

“  The  lengthy  document  contains  a  great  amount  of 
theological  and  liturgical  research,  but  simply  omits 
altogether  the  real  point  at  issue.  It  never  grapples 
with  the  real  question.  That  question  is  plainly  stated 
in  the  words  of  the  Papal  Bull  (p.  30),  but  it  is  passed 
over  by  proving  what  no  one  denies,  that  the  Reformers 

i  Cardwell  (Annals,  I,  241)  bears  witness  to  the  fact  that  from  the 
very  beginning  of  the  Anglican  Church  its  Bishops  obliged  the  clergy 
to  teach  the  people  that  “  The  Mass  is  not  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for 
the  living  and  the  dead.  ” 


42 


Anglican  Orders. 


intended  to  continue  the  three  orders  of  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons  in  the  church.  That  is  not  the  question  ; 
but  whether  they  intended  that  the  priest  should  dis¬ 
charge  precisely  the  same  functions  as  before.  The 
argument  of  the  Bull  is  simple,  intelligible,  and  on  the 
premises  laid  down,  conclusive,  .  .  .  and  we  owe 

him  (the  Pope)  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  so  clearly  proving 
the  thoroughly  Protestant  character  of  our  Church.  ” 

Other  English  as  well  as  American  papers  of  a  rep¬ 
resentative  character  have  taken  the  same  view. — Ed.] 

The  Ritualists. 

Yet  not  all  Anglicans — fortunately  or  unfortunately, 
it  is  hard  to  say, — belong  to  this  school.  For  in  fact 
there  are  some  among  them  who  are  neither  Protestants 
like  their  brethren,  nor  Catholics  like  us.  An  English 
Prelate  has  well  defined  them  as  Protestants  in  Catholic 
disguise.  These  originated  in  England  about  sixty 
years  ago,  in  the  so-called  Oxford  or  Tractarian  Move¬ 
ment,  and  are  known  to-day  under  the  name  of  Ritualists. 
They  profess,  after  a  fashion,  to  believe  in  the  priesthood, 
in  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  in  the  Real  Presence  of 
Jesus  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  We  say  “  after  a  fash¬ 
ion,”  for  they  do  not  understand  these  dogmas  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  the  Catholic  Church  understands, 
and  always  has  understood  them.  They  recognize  in  the 
Mass  only  a  commemorative  sacrifice ;  and  although 
they  teach  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  yet 
they  explain  it  in  a  Lutheran  sense,  or  as  an  indefinable 
spiritual  presence.  They  all,  however,  reject  the  Catho¬ 
lic  doctrines  of  Transubstantiation ;  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  Church  ;  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  primacy  of  juris¬ 
diction,  and  many  others.  Nevertheless,  they  hold  that 
the  supernatural  life  of  the  soul  is  created,  nurtured  and 
perfected  by  the  Sacraments  ;  and  that  the  priests  who 


Commentary  on  the  Bull  “Apostolicae  Curae.”  43 


administer  them  have  power  to  consecrate,  to  sacrifice, 
and  to  absolve  from  sin.  Since  such  a  power  essentially 
depends  on  the  valid  succession  of  the  Catholic  priest¬ 
hood,  it  is  plain  why  Ritualists  have  always  beep; 
anxious  to  assure  themselves  as  to  the  validity  of  the 
orders  received  in  the  Anglican  Church.  To  this  end 
they  have  sought  more  than  once,  but  always  in  vain, 
some  kind  of  recognition  of  their  Orders  from  the 
Greeks,  from  the  Dutch  Jansenists;  lately,  from  the 
“Old  Catholics”  of  Germany;  but  all  their  endeavors 
have  been  in  vain.  On  the  other  hand,  many  of  their 
own  people  have  been  filled  with  serious  doubts,  as  is 
attested  by  the  striking  fact  that  Dr.  F.  G.  Dee —  whc 
himself  wrote  what  was  for  long  considered  the  best 
defence  of  Anglican  Orders — actually  solicited,  at  the 
hands  of  some  schismati  cal  Bishops,  who  make  use  of  a 
rite  acknowledged  by  the  Catholic  Church,  all  the 
orders,  inclusive  of  the  episcopate,  so  that  he  and  those 
who  applied  for  the  same  favor  with  him  might,  in 
time,  administer  them  to  others ;  and  it  is  understood 
that  they  in  turn  have  ordained,  by  the  same  rite,  a 
considerable  number  of  applicants  from  among  the 
Anglican  clergy.  Under  such  circumstances,  which 
were  somewhat  discouraging,  it  was  determined  at  last  to 
approach  the  Holy  See  with  the  plea  (suggested  by  Lord 
Halifax,  the  leader  of  a  faction  belonging  to  a  not  very 
large  party  of  the  Ritualists)  that  if  the  Roman  Pontiff 
would  recognize — were  it  only  conditionally — the  valid¬ 
ity  of  these  Orders,  the  way  might  be  smoothed  to  a  pos¬ 
sible  corporate  reunion  of  the  Church  of  England  with 
that  of  Rome. 

Disappointed. 

To  this  party  the  solemn  and  final  condemnation  pro¬ 
nounced  by  Deo  XIII.  could  not  be  otherwise  than 
grievously  displeasing.  With  one  rude  blow  the  Pope 


44 


Anglican  Orders. 


dispelled  their  fond  dream  that  the  “Roman  Branch” 
of  the  Catholic  Church  could  recognize  the  Orders  of 
the  “  Anglican  Branch  ”  as  of  equal  value  and  efficacy 
with  its  own.  It  was  but  natural  that  together  with  this 
dream  should  also  vanish  that  favorite  Branch-theory, 
according  to  which  the  Church  was  to  be  one ,  not  by 
unity  of  faith  and  government,  as  Leo  XIII.  teaches  in 
his  Encyclical  Saiis  Cognitum ,  but  simply  by  the  unity 
or  sameness  of  the  sacraments,  which  are  claimed  by 
the  diverse  and  independent  “  Branches  ”  or  national 
Churches,  into  which  it  is  divided.  Their  disappoint¬ 
ment  has  been  all  the  more  bitter  because  great  hopes  of 
a  different  solution  had  been  pictured  for  them  during 
the  last  two  years,  not  only  by  the  leaders  of  the  English 
Church  Union ,  but  also  through  the  not  wholly  discreet 
zeal  of  certain  Catholic  writers.1 

All  this  may  explain  the  irritation  and  pretended  dis¬ 
dain  which  their  periodicals  affect  now  that  the  decision 
has  been  made  plain  by  the  publication  of  the  Bull,  but 
it  can  surely  not  excuse,  or  much  less  justify,  the  offen¬ 
sive  innuendos  and  slanderous  accusations  with  which 
some  of  them  have  sought  to  discredit  the  Pontifical 
Document. 

To  all  these  charges  and  insinuations  we  shall  make 
fitting  answer  in  the  course  of  this  inquiry ;  but,  first  of 
all,  let  us  repeat  here  to  our  separated  brethren  the  assu¬ 
rance  given  by  H.  E.  Cardinal  Vaughan  in  his  speech  at 
Hanley,  that  nothing  short  of  irrefutable  evidence, 
urgent  charity,  and  imperative  duty  could  have  induced 
Leo  XIII.  to  pronounce  a  final  judgment  on  the  invalid- 


i.  See  e.  g.  the  Guardian  in  its  issues  of  September  23  and  30,  of 
1896.  This  is  one  of  those  journals  which  in  the  early  months  of  1896, 
echoing  the  sentiments  of  Messrs.  Lacey,  Puller  and  other  ritualists 
and  favorers  of  ritualism  well  known  at  Rome,  were  loud  in  praising 
the  wisdom,  impartiality,  broad-mindedness,  etc.,  of  the  Holy 
Father. 


Commentary  on  the  Bull  “Apostolicae  Curae.”  45 


ity  of  their  Orders.  Set  by  God  to  govern  His  Church 
upon  earth,  he  is  her  supreme  Head,  her  infallible 
teacher,  the  chief  guardian  of  her  sacraments,  her  only 
safe  guide  through  the  often  uncertain  paths  of  truth 
and  right  A  debtor  to  God  and  souls  alike,  in  the  ful¬ 
fillment  of  this  his  office,  it  would  have  been  cruel  not 
to  dissipate  that  most  baneful  error  which  envelopes  so 
many  of  his  children,  who,  whilst  still  separated  from 
him,  are  sincerely  seeking  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  in 
the  unity  of  faith.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Leo 
XIII.,  as  in  every  other  case,  so  especially  in  the  present 
one,  is  moved  solely  by  the  Apostolic  solicitude  and  love 
“in  which,”  as  he  says  in  the  beginning  of  the  Bull, 
“aided  by  His  grace,  We  strive  according  to  Our  ability 
to  imitate  and  resemble  the  great  Pastor  of  the  sheep, 
Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ” 


46 


Anglican  Orders. 


Historic  Origin  of  the  Anglican  Difficulty. 

Henry  VIII.  was  the  English  King  who  first  forced 
the  clergy  and  people  of  a  Church,  till  then  justly  proud 
of  the  title  of  “  nobilissimum  Sedis  Apostolicae  mem¬ 
brum to  separate  from  the  See  of  Peter.  Having  in 
1534  rebelled  against  Clement  VII.,  because  that  Pope 
could  not  allow  him  a  divorce  from  his  lawful  wife, 
Henry  VIII.  proclaimed  himself  Head  of  the  Church  in 
England,  and  compelled  his  subjects  to  swear  adhesion 
to  this  new  dogma.2  Thus  began  the  Anglican  schism, 
and  religious  anarchy  in  England.  To  a  mere  layman, 
named  Cromwell,  was  committed  the  ecclesiastical 
government,  as  Vicar  General  of  the  Crown  in  spiritual 
things ;  the  principal  sees  were  filled  with  bishops 
notorious  for  their  heresy  and  rabid  Protestantism, 
whilst  the  preachers  of  the  Reformation  were  allowed 
to  wander  everywhere  unmolested  in  the  propagation  of 
their  heresy.  For  the  rest,  although  it  is  undeniable,  as 
two  Anglican  ministers  have  recently  acknowledged  at 
Rome,3  that  under  the  schismatic  Henry  who  died  Janu- 

1.  Epist,  Greg.  IX.  ad  Suffraganeos  Eccles.  Canluar. 

2.  Act  of  Supremacy,  26,  Henry  VIII,  cc.  1,  2,  3. 

3.  Messrs.  Lacey  and  Puller,  De  Re  Anglicana.  We  allude  to  Messrs. 
Lacey  and  Puller,  who,  having  labored  strenuously  to  enlighten 
the  Curia  on  the  question  of  Anglican  Orders,  issued  last  May  ( 1896) 
a  work  entitled  De  Re  Anglicana ,  which  they  published  secretly  at 
Rome,  and  distributed  broadcast  among  the  Cardinals  and  Roman 
prelates.  A  translation  of  these  two  documents — Mr.  Lacey’s  De  Re 
Anglicana ,  and  the  Risposta  of  Dom  Gasquet  and  Canon  Moyes— 
was  published  in  the  Tablet.  (Nov.  7th,  14th  and  27th,  1896.)  The 
immediate  object  of  this  publication  was  to  correct  a  false  impression 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  Risposta,  to  which  the  Guardian  and  the 
Church  Times  had  previously  given  currency.  These  papers,  whilst 
they  published  selections  from  the  Risposta,  suppressed  all  mention 
of  its  true  character  as  a  criticism  on  the  De  Re  Anglicana ,  and  gave 
the  impression  that  it  set  forth  the  sole  reasons,  which  had  deter¬ 
mined  the  English  commissioners  to  petition  for  the  condemnation 
of  Anglican  Orders : — in  other  words,  these  papers  suggested  that 


Commentary  on  the  Bull  “Apostolicae  Curae.”  47 


ary  28,  1547,  there  happened  “quaedam  (multa?)  faci¬ 
norosa,  quaedam  adhuc  ploranda,”1  nevertheless  it  is 
certain  that  during  this  first  period  ofjthe  Anglican 
schism  (1534-1547)  the  Catholic  Liturgy  was  maintained 
intact,  and  the  forma  Ecclesiae  consueta ,  the  customary 
form  of  the  Church  was  used  in  Holy  Ordinations.  As 
to  the  validity  of  these  Orders  there  is  no  doubt,  nor  does 
the  Bull  of  Leo  XIII.  refer  to  them  in  any  way. 

Cranmer  and  the  Anglican  Ordinal. 

But  Thomas  Cranmer,  the  unworthy  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  chosen  by  Henry  to  be  his  instrument  in 
bringing  about  the  complete  schism,  was  anxious 
to  abolish  the  Catholic  Liturgy  in  England  and  to 
fashion  the  ritual  and  religious  practices  after  the 
pattern  of  the  German  Protestant  sects.  For  this  pur¬ 
pose  he  kept  up  a  regular  and  close  correspondence  with 
the  founders  of  these  sects.  With  the  death  of  Henry 
his  longed-for  opportunity  arrived.  Finding  himself 
appointed,  by  the  will  of  the  late  monarch,  to  the  second 
place  in  the  Council  of  the  Regency  of  Edward  VI. 
(who  had  succeeded  his  father  at  the  age  of  about  nine 
years),  Cranmer  made  haste  to  carry  his  sinister  designs 
into  execution.  Amongst  the  more  important  novelties 
which  he  caused  to  be  approved  by  Parliament  the  chief 
were  the  suppression2  of  the  Missal  in  favor  of  the 

the  Risposta  convicted  the  Commission  and  the  Roman  authorities 
of  having  decided  the  merits  of  a  theological  and  historical  question 
solely  on  grounds  of  political  expediency.  What  added  to  the 
strange  character  of  this  episode  is  the  fact  that  Messrs.  Lacey  and 
Puller  who,  as  authors  of  the  De  Re  Anglicana,  could  not  be  igno¬ 
rant  of  the  facts,  in  no  wise  deemed  it  their  duty  to  protest  against 
this  false  imputation  on  the  personal  honor  of  their  opponents. 

1.  Opusc.  cit 

2.  The  Missal  was  suppressed  by  Act  of  Parliament,  January  15, 
X549.  The  Ordinal,  as  a  substitute  for  the  Pontifical,  was  approved 


48 


Anglican  Orders. 


Protestant  communion  office ,  and  the  institution  of  a 
new  rite  called  the  Ordinal ,  which  was  to  be  followed 
in  ordinations  in  place  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Ponti¬ 
fical  used  for  so  many  centuries  in  the  Church  of 
England. 

We  have  called  this  Ordinal  a  new  rite  (and  it  is  so 
called  in  the  Bull,  “ Novus  plane  ritus ,”)  for  in  reality  the 
compilers  of  the  Ordinal ,  in  abandoning  the  rite  of  the 
Roman  Pontifical  would  not  and  could  not  accept  any  of 
the  ancient  rites  recognized  as  valid  by  the  Catholic 
Church.  The  reason  of  this  fact  is  evident  from  the 
scope  they  had  in  view,  which  was  to  exclude  from  the 
Anglican  liturgy  all  sacerdotalism ,  and  every  trace 
of  the  Catholic  doctrine  about  the  Real  Presence  and 
the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice.  Now,  if  the  rite  prescribed  by 
the  Pontifical  was  deliberately  rejected,  precisely 
because  it  was  crammed  full  of  formulas  and  cere¬ 
monies  which  asserted,  supposed  and  signified  the  priest¬ 
hood,  the  Real  Presence,  and  the  Sacrifice,  how  could 
they  accept  the  rites,  say,  of  the  Greeks,  or  Maronites,  or 

a  year  after,  in  1550.  The  final  revision  of  the  new  liturgy  was  car¬ 
ried  out  in  1552.  There  is  a  disposition  among  Anglican  contro¬ 
versialists  to  speak  as  though  before  the  Reformation  a  variety  of 
ordination  rites  existed  in  England,  and  to  infer  from  the  fact  of  such 
a  variety  that  local  churches  had  always  enjoyed  the  right  to  draw  up 
such  services  for  themselves ;  a  right,  therefore,  which  the  Reforming 
prelates  were  as  much  entitled  to  use  as  their  predecessors.  In  view 
of  this  tendency  among  controversalists  it  is  well  to  remember  that 
the  different  pre-Reformation  Pontificals — the  Sarum,  the  Exeter,  the 
Winchester,  etc.,  were  not  different  rites  but  the  same  rite,  with 
merely  a  few  slight  variations  of  text  and  ceremony  in  purely  minor 
matters.  The  proportion  of  these  local  variations  to  the  portion 
which  is  identical  in  them  all  is  not  more  than  one  to  a  hundred,  if  as 
much.  And  what  is  said  of  the  ancient  English  Pontificals  can 
be  similarly  said  of  all  the  Pontificals  of  the  West.  They  are  all  the 
one  and  the  same  text,  with  merely  a  very  few  unimportant  variants 
of  phraseology  and  ceremony.  Hence  what  Cranmer  did  was  to  lay 
sacrilegious  hands  on  a  rite  which  had  been  in  use  throughout  the 
entire  Western  Church  from  time  immemorial. 


Commentary  on  the  Bull  “Apostolicae  Curae.”  49 


Nestorians,  or  Jacobites  of  Alexandria,  or  Armenians,  or 
of  others  which  are  governed  by  these  same  conceptions 
no  less  than  the  Roman  rite,  ancient  and  modern  ? 1 

Let  us  observe  some  of  the  characteristic  notes  of 
the  Anglican  Ordinal  for  the  conferring  of  those  three 
orders  which  it  in  some  sense  recognizes — diaconate, 
priesthood,  episcopate.  In  the  Ordinal ,  as  we  have 
already  noticed,  there  is  not  a  word  which  hints  at  a 
priestly  power  of  consecrating,  and  offering  in  sacrifice 
to  God  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  really  pres¬ 
ent  under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine ;  the  consecra¬ 
tion  of  the  candidate  with  holy  oils  is  left  out ;  also  all 
the  ceremonies  with  their  accompanying  forms  used  by 
the  Church  to  signify  the  said  powers,  such  as  the  de¬ 
livery  of  the  instruments,  for  example,  the  chalice  and 
paten  with  host  in  the  case  of  the  priesthood.  Even 
that  most  ancient  eucharistic  prayer,  called  the  conse - 
cratory  prayer,  which  is  common  to  all  rites,  is  not 
only  changed  and  adulterated  in  this  Ordinal ,  but  fur¬ 
thermore  is  separated  from  the  laying-on  of  hands,  and 
is  recited  just  like  any  other  preparatory  prayer.  More¬ 
over,  not  one  of  the  new  forms  used  in  the  Ordinal 2 
expresses  the  power,  or  the  order,  which  is  to  be  con¬ 
ferred.  How  much  of  this  Ordinal ,  known  as  the 
Ordinal  of  Edward  VI. ,  came  from  the  pen  of  Cranmer 
himself  it  is  not  easy  to  determine ;  but  it  is  beyond 
dispute  that  he  directed  its  composition,  that  he  intro¬ 
duced  into  it  the  new  forms ,  and  that  together  with  his 

1.  The  text  of  these  rites  can  be  seen  in  Assemani’s  Codex  Liturgicus 
Eccl.  Utiiv.  Tomi  viii.,  ix.,  xi.;in  his  Bibliotheca  Orientalis ,  Tom.  iii.; 
also  m  Morinus,  De  Sacris  Ecclesiae  Ordinationibus;  Denzinger,  Ritus 
Orientalium;  Duchesne,  Origines  du  Culte  ChrUien;  Maskell,  Monu¬ 
menta  Ritualia ,  etc.,  etc. 

2  That  is,  in  the  Ordinal  as  it  issued  from  the  hands  of  its  first  com¬ 
pilers  and  was  in  use  during  the  first  century  of  Anglicanism.  The 
additions  made  in  1662  will  be  referred  to  presently. 


50 


Anglican  Orders. 


colleagues  lie  willed  that  it  should  be  substituted  for  the 
Pontifical  with  the  open,  deliberate  and  heretical  inten¬ 
tion  of  excluding  the  Catholic  Priesthood  and  Sacrifice 
from  the  Church  of  England. 

In  speaking  of  Anglican  Orders  we  speak  always,  and 
only,  of  those  Orders  which  were  (and  are)  conferred  with 
the  aforesaid  Ordinal.  So,  also,  it  is  only  of  these 
Orders  that  the  Bull  speaks  when  it  says :  “  Ordinationes 
ritu  anglicano  actas  irritas  prorsus  fuisse  et  esse,  omnino- 
que  nullas.” 

Another  fact  which  it  is  well  to  mention  here,  and  to 
which  we  shall  refer  more  than  once  in  the  following 
paragraphs,  is  that  during  the  short  reign  of  Edward  VI. 
(1547-1553),  the  episcopal  consecrations  of  Poynet, 
Hooper,  Coverdale,  Scory,  Taylor  and  Harley  were 
performed  in  England  in  conformity  with  the  new 
Ordinal.  This  fact,  which  some  have  tried  to  deny,  is 
fully  certified  by  history.  The  authentic  documents 
and  manuscripts  which  prove  it  are  referred  to  by  Bur¬ 
net,  Fox,  Estcourt  and  other  English  writers  of  equal 
weight. 

The  Ordinal  under  Mary  and  Elizabeth. 

On  the  death  of  Edward,  July  6,  1553,  his  legitimate 
sister,  Mary,  was  proclaimed  Queen  of  England.  She 
had  always  remained  Catholic  and  attached  to  the 
Apostolic  See  of  Rome.  On  her  ascent  to  the  throne, 
and  as  long  as  she  lived,  she  labored  earnestly  to  repair 
the  religious  ruins  caused  by  her  father  and  brother, 
and  to  recall  England  to  her  ancient  communion  with 
the  Church  of  Rome.  In  this  work  she  had  the  effective 
and  intelligent  co-operation  of  Cardinal  Pole  who  had 
been  sent  to  her  expressly  by  Pope  Julius  III.,  in  the 
capacity  of  Papal  Legate,  with  the  fullest  necessary 
faculties.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  reign  of  Mary  was 
to  remove,  by  the  Legate’s  authority,  the  six  “  bishops  ” 


Commentary  on  the  Bull  “Apostolicae  Curae.”  51 


aforesaid  from  the  sees  which  they  occupied,  and  to 
abrogate  the  new  Liturgy,  together  with  the  Edwardine 
Ordinal ,  restoring  in  its  full  vigor  the  old  Catholic 
Pontifical  to  be  used  in  all  ordinations. 

It  is  to  the  first  three  years  of  Mary’s  reign  that  the 
four  most  important  documents,  quoted  by  Leo  XIII. 
in  his  Bull  belong.  Of  these,  two  are  of  Julius  III., 
two  of  Paul  IV. ,  and  they  bear  respectively  the  dates 
August  5,  1553,  March  8,  1554,  June  20,  and  October 
30,  1555.  From  the  whole  four,  as  we  shall  presently 
see,  it  is  clear  that  the  question  of  the  validity  of 
Anglican  Orders  had  already  been  seriously  studied  and 
decided  by  the  Holy  See  not  only  under  its  practical 
but  under  its  doctrinal  aspect. 

But  unfortunately  the  reign  of  Mary  was  even  shorter 
than  that  of  her  brother  Edward ;  and  she  died  in  the 
November  of  1558,  having  reigned  four  years  and  four 
months. 

To  her  succeeded  Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  Henry 
VIII.  and  his  notorious  mistress  Ann  Boleyn.  It  is  to 
Elizabeth  that  we  owe  the  return  of  the  evil  days  of  heresy 
and  schism  upon  England,  which  thenceforth  never 
ceased.  In  the  February  of  1559,  scarce  three  months 
after  the  death  of  her  sister,  by  an  Act  of  Parliament 
called  together  by  her  for  the  purpose,  she  suppressed 
once  more  the  Roman  Pontifical,  and  restored  the  use 
of  the  Liturgy  and  Ordinal  of  Edward  VI. 

The  Catholic  bishops  legitimately  nominated  and  con¬ 
secrated  under  the  reign  of  Mary  were  then  required  to 
apostatise,  and  to  take  that  same  iniquitous  oath  which 
had  been  enjoined  by  Henry  and  by  Edward;  they  were 
to  separate  themselves  from  the  centre  of  Catholic  unity 
established  by  Christ  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  to  deny 
the  jurisdiction  of  Jthe  Holy  See  and  to  acknowl¬ 
edge  Elizabeth  as  “  supreme  governor  ”  of  the  Church 
in  England.  However,  if  one  has  to  regret  the  cowar- 


5* 


Anglican  Orders. 


dice  of  so  many  bishops  who  bent  before  the  tyranny 
of  Henry,  it  is  consoling  to  learn  that  among  the  Cath¬ 
olic  bishops,  living  at  Elizabeth’s  accession  to  the  throne, 
there  was  but  one  Judas,  whilst  the  rest  faced  coura¬ 
geously  the  loss  of  their  sees,  incarceration,  and  various 
other  persecutions.1 

Modification  Introduced  in  the  Rite. 

But  now  Elizabeth’s  difficulties  began.  Desirous  to 
see  her  Church  founded  on  aristocratic  principles  she 
saved  from  the  general  destruction  the  three  hierarchical 
Orders,  although  counting  it  of  no  great  consequence 
whether  or  not  her  ministers  were  endowed  with  the 
sacramental  character.  With  such  thought  in  her  mind 
she  herself  nominated  the  candidates  whom  she  wished 
to  intrude  into  the  sees  vacated  by  their  lawful  pastors. 
Amongst  these  candidates  Matthew  Parker,  formerly 
chaplain  to  Ann  Boleyn,  was  designated  to  the  See  of 
Canterbury.  But  how  was  he  to  be  consecrated  ?  All 
the  Catholic  bishqps  refused  their  services,  not  except¬ 
ing  Bishop  Kitchen,  he  who  alone  had  submitted  to 
the  sacrilegious  oath.  In  such  perplexity,  after  a  short 
delay,  Elizabeth  issued  her  mandate  of  consecration, 
which  was  accepted  by  Coverdale  and  by  his  three 

i  In  the  Registrum  diversarum  scripturarum  Angliae,  Scotiae , 
Hiberniae ,  etc.,  preserved  in  the  secret  Archives  of  the  Vatican,  there 
is  to  be  found  a  letter  written  to  Cardinal  Morone  which  is  referred 
to  this  period.  There  we  read  :  “  In  England  there  are  at  present 
27  Cathedral  Churches  whereof  15  are  vacant  through  the  death  of 
the  Catholic  bishops  who  had  been  put  in  possession  legitimately  by 
the  Apostolic  See.  The  bishops  of  the  other  12  are  still  alive;  and  of 
these  ten  are  prisoners  in  the  Tower  simply  for  the  Catholic  faith,  and 
the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  which  they  are  resolved  to  obey, 
and  to  suffer  any  torment  ere  they  will  acknowledge  any  other  Head 
of  God’s  Church  than  the  Pope.  Of  the  two  other  living  bishops, 
he  of  S.  Asaph  is  at  the  Council  of  Trent  by  order  of  your  Holiness, 
while  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff  has  allowed  himself  t  o  be  seduced  into 
obeying  the  Queen.” — Cf- W- Maziere  Brady,  Annals  of  the  Catholic 
Hierarchy ,  Rome,  1877,  p.  4. 


Commentary  on  tlie  Bull  “Apostolicae  Curae.”  53 


brother  apostates,  Barlow,  Scory  and  Hodgkins.  Barlow 
had  been  nominated  by  Henry  VIII.  to  the  Bishopric 
of  St.  David’s  in  1536,  i.  e.,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
schism.  It  is,  however,  uncertain  whether  he  ever 
received  episcopal  consecration,  as  all  positive  proof  of 
the  fact  is  lacking.1 

Scory  and  Coverdale,  as  we  saw  above  (page  50),  had 
been  consecrated  according  to  the  Edwardine  Ordinal '. 
As  to  Hodgkins  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  he  was  con¬ 
secrated  bishop  under  Henry  VIII.,  according  to  the 
Catholic  Pontifical.  These,  therefore,  were  the  conse- 
crators  of  Parker  ;  and  if  we  are  to  trust  the  Act  which 
is  preserved  in  Parker’s  Archiepiscopal  Register  at 
Lambeth  Palace,  we  must  hold  it  for  an  historical  fact 
that  on  Dec.  17,  1559,  Parker  was  ponsecrated  according 
to  the  Edwardine  Ordinal  by  Barlow,  assisted  by  the 
three  prelates  just  mentioned,  who  were  associated  with 
him  not  merely  in  laying-on  hands,  but  also  in  pro¬ 
nouncing  the  words  of  the  Anglican  form  :  Take  the 
Holy  Ghost ,  and  remember  that  thou  stir  up  the  grace  of 
God  which  A-  in  thee  by  the  imposition  of  hands ;  for 
God  hath  not  given  us  the  spirit  of  fear ,  but  of  power , 
and  love  and  soberness. 

Being  himself  consecrated  after  this  fashion,  Arch¬ 
bishop  Parker  in  his  turn  consecrated  the  other  candi- 

1  Mgr.  Gasparri  in  his  work  De  la  valeur  des  Ordinations  Angli- 
canes  (Paris,  1895,  p.  22),  holds  the  consecration  of'  Barlow  to  be  his¬ 
torically  certain  and  assures  us  that,  after  reading  the  Apologetic 
Dissertation  De  Hierarchia  Anglicana  published,  by  Messrs.  Lacey 
and  Denny,  aucun  doute  n'est  resit  dans  tnon  esprit.  We,  too,  have 
read  the  said  Dissertation  but  we  confess  after  having  also 
read  what  has  been  written  on  this  point  by  Estcourt  (  The  Question 
of  Anglican  Orders  Discussed ,  London,  1873),  by  Fr.  Sydney 
Smith,  (Reasons  for  Rejecting  Anglican  Orders.  Catholic  Truth 
Society,  London,  1895),  and  recently  by  the  Tablet ,  we  have  been 
greatly  confirmed  in  our  doubts.  But  to  our  present  purpose  this 
point  is  of  little  or  no  importance,  since  the  final  condemnation  of 
Anglican  Orders  in  no  way  depends  on  that  controversy. 


54 


Anglican  Orders. 


dates  nominated  by  Elizabeth,  and  these  their  successors, 
and  so  on,  all  following  the  new  Ordinal  which  from 
that  day  to  this  has,  with  the  exception  of  one  modifi¬ 
cation,  been  constantly  and  faithfully  followed  in  all 
the  ordinations  of  the  English  Church. 

The  modification  referred  to  consists  in  the  addition 
of  some  words  to  the  Edwardine  form  signifying  the 
particular  power  to  be  conferred.  Thus  in  the  form  of 
Episcopal  consecration,  to  the  words  “  Take  the  Holy 
Ghost  ”  are  added  “for  the  office  and  work  of  a  bishop 
in  the  Church  of  God.”  But  such  a  change  not  being 
introduced  till  a  hundred  and  three  years  after  the  con¬ 
secration  of  Parker — when,  if  the  original  Edwardine 
form  was  invalid,  there  was  no  longer  a  single  validly 
consecrated  Anglican  bishop  in  the  country — cannot 
affect  this  controversy,  except  perhaps  by  indicating 
that  the  Anglicans  themselves  were,  at  the  latter  time, 
convinced  of  the  defectiveness  of  the  form  they  had 
been  using  for  more  than  a  century.  In  other  words — 
as  the  Holy  Father  has  most  wisely  observed  in  the 
Bull — “  Eadem  adjectio,  si  forte  quidem  legitimam 
significationem  apponere  formae  posset,  serius  est 
inducta,  elapso  iam  saeculo  post  receptum  Ordinale 
Eduardianum;  quum  propterea,  Hierarchia  extincta, 
potestas  ordinandi  iam  nulla  esset.” 

r~ 

The  Story  of  the  “  Nag’s  Head.” 

Before  concluding  this  brief  historical  sketch,  which, 
though  not  absolutely  necessary,  aids  us  in  the  full 
understanding  and  defence  of  the  Pontifical  document, 
it  will  not  be  out  of  place  to  touch  on  another  point, 
therein  alluded  to,  which  relates  to  this  same  consecra¬ 
tion  of  Parker. 

According  to  an  old  story,  at  the  beginning  of  Eliza¬ 
beth’s  reign  her  candidates  for  the  episcopate  were  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  assembled  at  a  tavern  in  Eondon  called 


Commentary  on  the  Bull  “Apostolicae  Curae.”  55 


the  Nag's  Head,  where  their  consecration  was  per¬ 
formed  in  the  following  way.  While  Parker  and  the 
other  candidates  knelt,  Bishop  Scory  laid  an  open 
Bible  on  the  head  of  each,  saying  :  ‘ 1  Receive  authority 
to  preach  the  pure  word  of  God.”  Then  taking  Parker 
by  the  hand  he  said  :  “Arise,  Bishop  of  Canterbury  !” 
This  story,  though  it  gained  credence  for  a  time,  must 
unquestionably  be  rejected  as  untrue — at  least  in  the 
sense  of  containing  the  denial  of  the  Lambeth  consecra¬ 
tion.  The  evidence  now  in  hand  places  it  beyond  doubt 
that  Archbishop  Parker  did  undergo  a  ceremony  of 
consecration  at  Lambeth  on  Dec.  17,  1559 ;  nor  can  the 
accounts  recorded  in  the  Lambeth  register  be  far  from 
the  truth.  There  must,  however,  have  been  some 
feature  in  the  Lambeth  ceremony,  which  caused  anxiety 
to  the  perpetrators,  for  they  evidently  desired  to  conceal 
its  celebration  from  the  Catholics.  This  is  proved  by 
the  controversy  between  Harding  and  Jewell  (see  Dublin 
Review,  Jan.  1896),  in  which  Harding  tries  his  best  to 
elicit  from  his  adversary  what  the  facts  were,  but  can¬ 
not  succeed.  Such  being  the  policy  of  reserve  adopted 
in  regard  to  an  event  which  the  Government  might 
have  been  expected  to  proclaim  even  on  the  house-tops, 
it  was  not  wonderful  that  the  Catholics  should  have 
speculated  among  themselves,  and  have  given  too  easy 
a  credence  to  a  legendary  account.1  It  ought  not,  how- 

1  One  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  what  may  be  written  on  this  or 
any  other  subject  by  incompetent  writers,  but  for  a  long  time  past  no 
English  Catholic  writer  of  any  standing  has  ufed  the  Nag’s  Head 
story  as  an  argument.  If  on  the  Continent  two  exceptions  to  this 
rule  can  be  cited — Mgr.  Gasparri  (De  Sacra  Ordinatione ,  n.  4)  and 
Perrone  (De  Ordine,  n.  137,  nota  4), — this  must  be  ascribed  to  their 
comparative  unfamiliarity  with  the  English  Catholic  literature  on  the 
subject.  Mgr.  Gasparri,  however,  retracted  his  former  teaching  in 
his  later  work.  ( De  la  valeur  des  Ordinations  Anglicanes),  and  Fr. 
Perrone,  though  he  gives  the  story  in  a  footnote,  as  a  piece  of  erudi¬ 
tion,  expressly  states  that  it  was  rejected  by  Dr.  Lingard. 


56  Commentary  on  the  Bull  “Apostolicae  Curae.” 


ever,  to  be  forgotten  that  from  the  time  of  Champneys 
(1618),  the  corypheus  among  the  early  writers  against 
Anglican  Orders,  other  reasons  besides  the  Nag’s  Head 
Story,  and,  chief  among  them,  the  reasons  on  which 
the  Bull  insists,  have  always  been  alleged  and  discussedj 
What  has  been  the  genuine  and  authoritative  “  Roman 
teaching  ”  from  the  very  first  beginnings  of  this  contro¬ 
versy,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  explain  in  the  course  of 
this  work.  Let  it  suffice  for  the  present  to  assert,  on  the 
faith  of  valuable  documents  before  us,  that  the  so-called 
“Nag’s  Head  Story”  was  known  and  discredited  at 
Rome  as  early  as  1684-85,  when  for  the  first  time  the 
question  of  Anglican  Orders  was  submitted  to  the 
authoritative  judgment  of  the  Congregation  of  the  Holy 
Office  at  Rome.1  We  shall  see,  too,  that  the  reason 
drawn  from  the  absence  of  a  proper  form  and  intention 
{defectus formae  et  intentionis ),  on  which  Leo  XIII.  based 
his  final  judgment  adverse  to  the  validity  of  these  Orders, 
has  been  likewise  the  sole  reason  which  in  every  case 
determined  the  decisions  of  his  predecessors  and  of  the 
aforesaid  Congregation  in  this  matter.  Whence  it  will 
be  clear  how  truly  their  Eminences,  the  judges  of  the 
S.  Congregation,  in  a  special  meeting  coram  Sanctissimo , 
on  Thursday,  July  16th,  1896,  could  assert  that — as  we 
read  in  the  Bull :  “  The  question  laid  before  them  had 
been  already  adjudicated  upon  with  the  full  knowledge 
of  the  Apostolic  See,  and  that  this  renewed  discussion 
and  examination  of  the  issues  had  only  served  to  bring 
out  more  clearly  the  wisdom  and  accuracy  with  which 
that  decision  had  been  made.” 


i  In  the  authentic  Acts  of  that  time  it  is  said  expressly  that  the  con¬ 
cordant  judgment  of  the  consulting  theologians  against  the  validity  of 
the  said  Orders  was  given  without  making  any  account  ot  the  doubt 
relative  to  the  fact  of  Parker’s  ordination,  which  was  founded  on  his¬ 
torical  “  testimonia  sat  confusa  et  perplexa .” 


PART  II. 


THE  JUDGMENT  OF  LEO  XIII. 


Reasons  which  Prompted  the  Pontiff  to  Decide 
Against  the  Validity  of  Anglican  Orders. 

The  decisive  reason  upon  which  Leo  XIII.  founds  his 
final  decision  against  the  validity  of  Anglican  Orders  is 
that  absence  of  a  proper  form  and  intention  which  has 
vitiated  them  all  from  1550,  when  the  Edwardine  Ordi¬ 
nal  was  substituted  for  the  Catholic  Pontifical,  down  to 
the  present  time  in  which  the  same  Ordinal  (with  the 
change  already  mentioned)  continues  to  be  the  rite  used. 

From  his  Bull  it  is  evident  that  the  Holy  Father  has 
reached  this  conclusion  not  only  after  having  ascertained 
the  mind  of  his  predecessors  and  the  practice  of  the  Holy 
See  with  regard  to  the  same  Orders,  but  also,  and  more 
especially,  after  a  long  and  careful  study  of  the  Ordinal 
itself,  considered  both  in  itself  and  in  the  light  of  those 
historical  circumstances  which  illustrate  its  real  mean¬ 
ing,  and  determine  the  true  and  only  end  for  which  it 
was  created  and  substituted  for  the  ancient  rites.  This 
new  investigation  was  made,  as  it  ought  to  have  been, 
without  rejecting  any  of  the  numerous  means  wherein 
modern  criticism  abounds.  “  It  has,  therefore,  pleased 
us  graciously,”  writes  the  Pope,  “to  permit  the  cause  to 
be  re-examined,  so  that  through  the  extreme  care  taken 

(57) 


58 


Anglican  Orders. 


in  the  new  examination,  all  doubt,  or  even  shadow  of 
doubt,  should  be  removed  for  the  future.” 

This  we  wish  to  emphasise,  even  before  giving  more 
particular  proofs  of  it,  so  as  to  make  manifest  the  rashness 
of  Ritualists  like  Mr.  Lacy  1  and  others,  who,  eager  at 
all  costs  to  throw  discredit  on  the  Pontifical  document, 
are  not  ashamed  to  assert  that  Leo  XIII.  has  defined 
against  their  Orders,  not  from  a  study  of  their  intrinsic 
merits,  but  only  lest  by  approving  them  he  should 
seem  to  contradict  his  predecessors.  Surely  it  is  incon¬ 
ceivable  that  with  the  text  of  the  Bull  under  their  eyes 
they  should  permit  themselves  to  bring  such  charges, 
for  the  Bull  asserts  in  express  terms  that  the  Pope  did 
order  a  fresh  and  independent  investigation,  and  it 
devotes  six  pages  to  set  forth  the  lines  which  the  fresh 
investigation  followed  and  the  result  it  reached. 

Juuus  III.  AND  THE  EARLY  ORDINATIONS  ACCORDING 
to  the  Ordinal  oe  Edward  VI. 

Following  in  the  course  of  our  inquiry  the  order 
observed  by  the  Holy  Father,  we  shall  first  of  all  examine 
what  was  the  judgment  of  the  Holy  See  in  regard  to  the 
first  ordinations,  performed  according  to  the  new  rite 
during  the  last  three  years  of  the  reign  of  Edward  VI., 
i.  e.,  from  the  first  appearance  of  the  Ordinal ,  in  1550, 
till  the  death  of  that  monarch  in  1553,  when  Queen 
Mary  abrogated  the  new  Anglican  Liturgy  and  restored 
the  use  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Pontifical  at  all  ordina¬ 
tions.  This  judgment  of  the  Holy  See  is  found  clearly 
expressed  in  the  four  Apostolic  Letters  of  Popes  Julius 
III.  and  Paul  IV.,  already  referred  to. 

Julius  III.,  desirous,  with  the  Queen’s  help,  to  recall 
England  to  the  bosom  of  the  Catholic  Church,  sent  to 

i  See  the  Contemporary  Review  (Dec.,  1896,)  and  the  Guardian 
(Dec.  9th,  1896.) 


The  Judgment  of  Teo  XIII. 


59 


her  Cardinal  Pole  to  whom,  as  his  Legate,  he  entrusted 
the  fullest  requisite  faculties.1  C  Now,  amongst  these 
faculties  there  was  expressly  that  of  rehabilitating ,  or 
of  simply  habilitating ,  to  the  exercise  of  the  sacred 
ministry  those  ecclesiastics  who  had  been  exercising  it 
under  Kings  Henry  VIII.  and  Edward  VI.  The  rehabi¬ 
litation  was  to  be  used  in  favor  of  those  only  who, 
“ante  eorum  lapsum  inhaeresim  huiusmodi ,  rite  et  legi¬ 
time  promoti  vel  ordinati  fuissent .”2  The  simple  habili- 
tation  referred  to  those  who  had  not  been  ‘  ‘  rite  et  legi¬ 
time  promoti  ad  sacros  ordines that  is,  as  the  same 
Pontiff  explains  it  in  his  Brief  of  March  8,  1554,  those 
who  had  been  ordained  “  non  servata  forma  Ecclesiae 
consueta .”  These,  si  digni  et  idonei  reperti  fuissent 
(if  found  fit),  should,  in  order  to  be  able  to  serve  in  the 
sanctuary,  be  promoted  to  all  the  sacred  Orders  up  to 
priesthood  by  their  Ordinaries  ;  ad  omnes  etiam  sacros 
et  presbyteratus  ordines  ab  eorum  ordinariis  promoveri. 

And  now  who  were  these,  ordained  indeed,  yet  not 
ordained  servata  forma  Ecclesiae  consueta  ?  When  we 
reflect  that  in  those  three  years  (1550-1 553),  as  Leo  XIII. 
points  out  in  his  Bull,3  and  as  we  ourselves  have  just 

1  See  for  text :  Bulla  diei  gae.  augusti  1553,  quae  vocatur  institu- 
toria  Card.  Poli,  Legati.  (Arch.  Seer.  Vatic.,  Cf.  Documenta  ad 
Legationem  Poli  spectantia ,  Roma,  1896,  pp.  3-7 ;  also  Wilkins 
Concilia  (IV.  p.  91),  and  Burnet’s  Collection  of  Records.  (P.  Ill,  Bk. 
V.  n.  i7- ) 

2  “  Before  their  fall  into  heresy  had  been  duly  and  lawiully  promoted 
and  ordained.”  Such  were  all  those  who  had  been  ordained,  before 
the  new  Ordinal  had  been  substituted  for  the  Catholic  Pontifical. 

3  “  Besides  it  (the  Edwardine  form)  and  the  Catholic  form  there  was 
no  other  at  that  time  in  England.”  This  statement  has  been  chal¬ 
lenged  on  the  ground  that  Edward  VI.  permitted  John  A.  Lasco  and 
his  German  congregation  to  appoint  their  own  ministers  by  their  own 
rite ;  but  to  suggest  that  Julius  III.  may  have  had  this  German  rite  in 
view  is  to  have  recourse  to  what  can  only  be  called  a  miserable  sub¬ 
terfuge.  Besides  which,  even  if  it  were  necessary  to  take  this  into 
account,  the  Bull  of  Julius  III.  uses  a  negative  phrase  which  excludes 
all  forms  whatever  save  the  “  accustomed  form  of  the  Church.” 


6o 


Anglican  Orders. 


seen,  there  was  no  other  form  of  ordination  existing  in 
England  except  the  new  one  which  Edward  VI.  substi¬ 
tuted  for  the  forma  Ecclesiae  consueta ,  it  is  evident  that 
the  persons  alluded  to  were,  and  must  have  been,  those 
who  were  ordained  with  that  Ordinal.  If  therefore 
these  men  were,  according  to  the  express  command  of 
Julius  III.,  to  be  considered  as  simply  laymen,  and  were 
not  to  be  admitted  to  the  sacred  ministry  until  they  had 
been  re-ordained  absolutely  and  without  qualification, 
according  to  the  Catholic  form,  we  are  compelled  to 
conclude,  that  the  ordinations  which  they  received  by 
means  of  the  Anglican  Ordinal  were  judged  by  that 
Pope,  in  1553-4,  not  otherwise  than  they  have  been 
judged  in  1896  by  Leo  XIII.,  i.  e.,  irritas  prorsus  omnino- 
que  nullas. 

Paul  IV.  Examines  and  Decides  the  Question  in 

1555- 

Nor  was  the  judgment  any  different  which  Paul  IV. 
pronounced  upon  the  same  Orders  when,  in  1555,  he 
succeeded  Julius  III.,  after  the  twenty-one  days’  Pontifi¬ 
cate  of  Marcellus  II.  Before  retailing  the  words  of  Paul 
IV.,  Leo  XIII.  in  his  Bull  recalls  the  fact  that  a  solemn 
embassy  was  sent  to  Rome,  February  1555,  by  Queen 
Mary  and  her  consort  King  Philip.  The  point  of  this 
reminder  can  escape  nobody  who  understands  the  inti¬ 
mate  connection  of  cause  and  effect,  of  question  and 
answer  which  exists  between  the  said  embassy  and  the 
Apostolic  Letter  of  Paul  IV.,  dated  June  20, 1555.  From 
the  documents  in  reference  to  it,  which  are  kept  in  the 
Vatican  Archives,1  we  learn  that  its  purpose  was  to 
obtain  from  the  Roman  Pontiff  a  complete  reconcilia- 

1  Della  Ridutlione  del  Regno  d'  Inghilterra,  Sommario  primo 
(Arch.  Vat.  Arm.  64,  Tom.  28,  fol.  144) ;  Summarium  eorum  quae 
confirmari  petuntur  a  Sede  Apostolica  pro  Anglis.  (Ibid.  fol.  199. ) 


The  Judgment  of  Leo  XIII. 


61 


tion  of  the  Kingdom  with  the  Holy  See,  to  acquaint  him 
with  the  whole  state  of  affairs,  and  to  get  his  full  and 
solemn  confirmation  of  all  that  his  Legate,  Cardinal 
Pole,  had  done  up  till  then. 

From  the  same  document  we  gather  the  following 
fact — very  much  to  our  purpose.  The  embassy  con¬ 
sisted  of  Bishop  Thirlby  and  of  two  gentlemen,  Anthony 
Montague  and  Edward  Carne.  Of  the  first  Paul  IV. 
says:1  “the  Bishop  pleaded  like  a  man  of  genuine  elo¬ 
quence  and  sound  learning  ”2  in  the  pontifical  presence. 
He,  then,  and  his  two  companions,  both  in  word  and  in 
writing,  explained  how  greatly  the  full  reconciliation 
of  the  Church  of  England  with  that  of  Rome  was 
desired,  and  besought  in  particular  for  a  confirmation  of 
those  dispensations  whereby  ecclesiastical  personages, 
whether  secular  or  religious,  could  be  promoted  to  the 
Orders  as  well  as  to  the  benefices,  invalidly  obtained  by 
them  during  the  schism.3  This  clause  in  the  Summary 
is  most  important,  for  it  completely  refutes  the  charge 
so  confidently  brought  against  the  Apostolicae  Curae  of 
having  misinterpreted  the  meaning  of  the  distinction 
in  the  Bull  of  Julius  III.  (see  above),  between  the 
promoti  and  non  promoti.  In  this  Summary  Pole  states 
the  matters  in  regard  to  which  he  desires  a  ratification 
of  his  action  from  Paul  IV.  But  the  dispensation  grants 
which  he  had  given  and  thus  seeks  to  have  ratified, 
were  given  in  virtue  of  the  powers  imparted  to  him  by 
Julius  III.  As  the  ratification  he  desired  was  in  every 
particular,  according  to  the  terms  of  his  Summary, 


1  Epistola  Pauli  IV.,  Philippo  et  Maria  Angliae  Regibus ,  June 
30,  1555*  Cf.  Tierney’s  Dodd  “History  of  the  Church,”  II,  p.  120; 
Documenta  ad  Leg •  Poli  spectantia,  pp.  24-26. 

2  Oravit  Episcopus  vera  eloquentia  et  sana  praeditus  doctrina. 

3  “Dispensationes  cum  ecclesiasticis  personis,  saecularibus  et 
diversorum  ordinum,  ut  promoveantur  tam  in  ordinibus,  quam 
beneficiis  obtentis  nulliter  sub  schismate.” 


62 


Anglican  Orders. 


granted  him  in  the  Praeclara  Carissimi ,  the  cor¬ 
responding  clauses  in  Pole’s  Summary,  his  letters  to  the 
Queen,  and  his  faculties  granted  to  his  suffragans,  the 
Bull  of  Julius  III.  and  the  Bull  of  Paul  IV.  must  all 
bear  the  same  meaning,  and  can  be  used  to  interpret  one 
another.  Nay,  taken  together  they  unquestionably  dis- ' 
tinguish  between  Orders  given  by  the  Catholic,  and 
Orders  given  by  the  Edwardine,  form,  and  treat  the 
latter  as  null  and  void. 

Unless  we  suppose  that  this  request  was  wholly  with¬ 
out  meaning,  it  follows  that  in  the  opinion  of  the 
ambassadors  there  were  at  that  time  in  England  certain 
ecclesiastics  who,  during  the  schism,  had  been  invalidly 
ordained.  That  these  were  no  other  than  such  as  had 
been  ordained  with  the  new  rite  of  Edward  VI.  is 
deducible,  not  merely  from  the  fact  that  it  was  in  regard 
to  such  alone  that  the  Legate  had  till  then,  and  did 
afterwards  avail  himself  of  his  dispensing  power,  but 
also  from  the  notorious  fact  that  the  ambassadors,  in 
order  to  prove  the  need  and  urgency  of  their  request, 
brought  with  them  to  Rome  the  very  text  of  the 
Ordinal  wherewith  the  said  ecclesiastics  had  been 
ordained  during  the  schism,  and  submitted  it  to  the 
examination  of  the  Holy  See.1 

All  doubt  on  this  point— if  reasonable  doubt  could  yet 
remain — must  vanish  on  reading  the  following  decree  of 
Queen  Mary,  of  whom  these  ambassadors  were  the  hon¬ 
orable  representatives  and  faithful  interpreters  at  Rome:2 
“As  to  those  who  have  already  been  promoted  to  any 
kind  of  Orders  according  to  the  newly  fabricated  method 
of  ordaining,  seeing  that  truly  and  de  facto  they  have 
not  been  ordained  at  all,  the  Diocesan  Bishop,  if  he  finds 

1  Arch.  Vatic.  Nuntiatura  di  Inghilterra  m.  103.  Cf.  Bibliotheca 
Pia.  240. 

2  Doc  ad  Poll  leg.  sped,  p  4. 


The  Judgment  of  Leo  XIII.  63 

them  fit  and  worthy,  may  supply  what  was  wanting  in 
the  said  persons.”1 

Orders  and  Benefices  “Nueeiter  et  de  Facto.” 

Among  the  modern  defenders  of  the  validity  of 
Anglican  Orders  an  isolated  attempt  has  been  made  to 
weaken  the  force  of  Paul  IV. ’s  declaration  in  reply  to 
the  ambassadors,  by  assuming  that  the  Pope,  having  but 
recently  entered  upon  the  Pontificate,  could  not  have 
accurately  examined  the  question,  and  therefore  did  not 
intend  to  decide  it  in  his  Bull  of  June  20,  1555,  or  else 
decided  it  without  mature  deliberation.2 

It  is  needless  seriously  to  argue  this  assertion,  since 
we  have  the  word  of  the  Pontiff  himself  assuring  us  in 
express  terms,  that  he  sanctioned  no  request  made  to 
him  by  the  ambassadors  of  Mary  and  Philip  except 
after  careful  and  diligent  inquiry  :  ‘  ‘  Praemissis  omni¬ 
bus,”  he  writes  in  the  same  Bull,  “cum  nonnullis  ex 
fratribus  Nostris  ipsius  Romanae  Ecclesiae  Cardinali¬ 
bus,  propositis  et  diligenter  discussis ,  habitaque  desuper 
deliberatione  maturay  singula  (idest)  dispensationes, 
decreta,  etc.  .  .  .  auctoritate  apostolica  ex  certa 

scientia  approbamus  et  confirmamus.  ’  ’ 

1  “  Circa  illos  qui  iam  promoti  fuere  ad  aliquos  ordines  secundum 
modum  ordinandi  noviter  fabricatum ,  considerando  quod  vere  et  de 
facto  ordinati  non  fuerunt ,  Episcopus  Dioecesanus,  si  illos  idoneos 
et  capaces  invenerit,  supplere  potest  id  quod  antea  in  illis  hominibus 
defuit.” 

2  Bulla  Secreta  Pauli  IV.  “  Praeclara  carissimi.”  Archiv. 
Vatie.  Regesta  Pontificum ,  n.  1850,  Tom.  46,  f.  55.  As  England 
remained  without  Catholic  bishops  for  the  long  period  of  66  years,  it 
is  not  surprising  that  this  Bull,  which  referred  to  England,  was  for¬ 
gotten.  However,  it  has  happily  and  providentially  come  to  light 
in  good  time.  Our  readers  will  remember  that  no  sooner  was  it 
found  after  long  and  diligent  search  amid  the  Bulls  and  Acts  relating 
to  the  Council  of  Trent  where  it  had  been  inserted,  than  the  Civiltd 
Lattolica  at  once  announced  the  discovery,  and  published  the  most 
important  part  of  it  in  its  issue  of  June  1,  1895. 


64 


Anglican  Orders. 


Now,  among  the  “dispensationes”  was  precisely  the 
one  just  referred  to,  which  concerned  ecclesiastics  ut 
promoveantur  in  beneficiis  et  ordinibus  nulliter  obtentis 
sub  schismate .  Paul  IV.  approves  and  confirms  it, 
adding  to  it  this  clause  :  “  Ita  tamen  ut  si  qui  ad  ordines 
ecclesiasticos  tam  sacros  quam  non  sacros  ab  alio  quam 
episcopo  aut  archiepiscopo  rite  et  recte  ordinato  promoti 
fuerunt,  eosdem  ordines  ab  eorum  ordinario  de  novo  susci¬ 
pere  teneantur ,  nec  interim  in  iisdem  ordinibus  mini¬ 
strent.”1 

Therefore  Paul  IV.  recognizes  that  there  were  some  in 
England  at  that  time  who  de  facto  had  received 
during  the  schism  not  only  ecclesiastical  benefices,  but 
also  Orders  which  were  invalid.  In  this  sense  Leo 
XIII.  observes  rightly  in  his  Bull :  “Neque  praetermit¬ 
tendus  est  locus  ex  eisdem  Pontificis  (Pauli  IV.)  litteris, 
omnino  rei  congruens  ;  ubi  cum  aliis  beneficio  dispen¬ 
sationis  egentibus  numerantur  qui  tam  ordines  quam 
beneficia  ecclesiastica  nulliter  et  de  facto  obtinuerant .  ”  2 

Nor  is  this  all.  For  with  the  same  apostolic 
authority  Paul  IV.  confirms  and  approves  all  that  had 
been  decreed  by  his  Legate,  Cardinal  Pole,  about  these 
ordinations.  “  Eadem  apostoli ca  auctoritate  .  .  ea 

1  In  such  sort,  however,  that  if  any  were  promoted  to  ecclesiastical 
Orders,  holy  or  other,  by  a  bishop  or  archbishop  not  duly  and  rightly 
ordained,  they  shall  be  obliged  to  receive  the  same  Orders  again 
from  their  Ordinary  and  meanwhile  to  abstain  from  exercising  the 
ministry  of  those  Orders. 

2  In  thus  quoting  from  the  Praeclara  carissimi  Leo  XIII.  has  been 
charged  very  confidently  by  the  Anglican  press  with  adulterating  the 
words  of  his  predecessor — that  is,  by  omitting  the  word  concernentia , 
and  thereby  making  the  words  nulliter  et  de  facto  apply  to  the  Orders 
themselves,  instead  of  to  dispensations  granted  and  made  in  con¬ 
nection  with  them.  Leo  XIII.  presumably  omitted  this  word  because 
there  is  some  doubt  about  the  reading,  and  the  experts  say  its  admis¬ 
sion  into  the  text,  or  omission  from  it,  makes  no  difference.  See  on 
this  point  an  excellent  article  in  the  Tablet ,  of  October  17,  1896. 
(p.  606). 


The  Judgment  of  Leo  XIII. 


65 


omnia  quae  praedictus  Reginaldus  Cardinalis  Legatus 
decrevit,  decernimus ,  necnon  omnibus  his  quibus  ipse 
robur  Apostolicae  firmitatis  adiecit  Nos  quoque  robur 
ipsum  adiicimus.”  But  Cardinal  Pole  had  decreed1 
that  those  who  were  wrongly  ordained — male  ordines 
susceperunt — could  not  be  held  capable  of  the  sacred 
ministry  until  duly  reordained,  and  that,  therefore, 
those  who  had  been  ordained  with  the  new  rite  of 
Edward  VI.  non  servata  forma  et  intentione  Ecclesiae , 
must  be  regarded  as  invalidly  ordained.  Therefore 
Paul  IV.,  by  his  apostolic  authority  confirmed,  approved 
and  decreed  anew,  that  ordinations  performed  with  the 
new  Anglican  rite  should  be  accounted  invalid  and  null . 

The  Bull  of  Paul  IV.  was  brought  to  England  by  the 
aforementioned  Bishop  Thirlby,  and  was  published  by 
Cardinal  Pole,  Sept.  22,  1555,  as  appears  from  a  note  in 
Pole’s  handwriting  in  his  Register,  which  is  in  the  public 
Archives  at  Douay. 

The  Bishops’  “  Rite  et  Recte  non  Ordinati.” 

Then  a  doubt  arose  in  the  mind  of  some  concern¬ 
ing  the  schismatical  bishops,  whether  they  should  be 
accounted  as  rite  et  recte  ordinati ,  or  not.  To  this 
doubt  the  same  Pontiff  replied  in  a  Brief  of  Oct.2 3 * * 
following,  in  which  he  says:  “Nos  haesitationem  hu¬ 
jusmodi  tollere  et  serenitati  conscientiae  eorum  qui, 
schismate  durante,  ad  ordines  promoti  fuerant,  mentem 
et  intentionem  quam  in  eisdem  litteris  Nostris  habui¬ 
mus,  clarius  exprimendo,  opportune  consulere  volentes,8 
declaramus  eos  tantum  episcopos  et archiepiscopos  qui  non 

1  See  his  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Norwich. 

2  Arch.  Secret.  Vatic.,  Brev.  Origin.  Pauli ,  pp.  IV.,  Tom  i.,  n.  301. 

3  “  We  declare  that  it  is  only  those  bishops  and  archbishops  who 

have  not  been  ordained  and  consecrated  in  forma  Ecclesiae  that  can¬ 

not  be  considered  duly  and  rightly  ordained.” 


66 


Anglican  Orders. 


in  forma  Ecclesiae  ordinati  et  consecrati  fuerunt ,  rite  et 
recte  ordinatos  dici  non  posse .  Who,  then,  were  and 
who  must  have  been  these  bishops,  ordained  indeed,  but 
not  rightly  and  duly  ordained,  because  not  ordained  in 
forma  Ecclesiae  ?  Plainly  they  were  not  the  Catholic 
bishops  ordained  with  the  Catholic  Pontifical;  nor  could 
they  have  been  the  schismatical  bishops  ordained 
with  the  same  Pontifical  under  Henry  VIII. ;  it 
remains,  therefore,  that  they  were  the  schismatical 
bishops  ordained  under  Edward  VI.  with  the  new  rite; 
since,  be  it  well  noted  and  let  us  not  cease  to  insist  upon 
it, — at  that  time  there  were  only  two  classes  of  bishops 
in  England, — those  ordained  with  the  Catholic  Ponti¬ 
fical  and  those  ordained  with  the  Ordinal  of  Edward  VI. 

To  this  latter  class,  for  example,  belonged  at  least  six 
“  bishops”  then  alive — Poynet,  Hooper,  Coverdale, 
Scory,  Taylor  and  Harley,  who,  as  we  pointed  out 
before,  were  certainly  consecrated  with  that  Ordinal 
during  the  last  three  years  of  the  reign  of  Edward  VI. 

“In  Forma  Ecclesiae  Consueta.” 

Certain  critics  have  tried  to  show  that  the  words  in 
forma  Ecclesiae  used  by  Paul  IV. ,  and  the  words  in  forma 
Ecclesiae  consueta  used  by  Julius  III.  might  possibly  be 
understood  to  refer  not  strictly  to  the  Catholic  form  or 
rite  of  the  Pontifical,  but  to  the  essential  form  of  the 
Sacrament,  which  is  always  the  forma  Ecclesiae.  These 
and  other  similar  conjectures  were  quite  well  known  to 
Eeo  XIII. ,  when  he  was  drawing  up  his  Bull.  And  for 
this  very  reason  he  notices  with  admirable  clearness  and 
precision  that  the  force  of  the  said  words  was  by  no 
means  vague  nor  left  to  the  determination  of  individual 
caprice,  but  was  obviously  determined  by  the  scope  these 
two  Pontiffs  had  before  them  in  answering  the  inquiries 
which  came  from  England.  That  scope  was  not,  so  to 


The  Judgment  of  Leo  XIII. 


6  7' 


say,  speculative  and  impertinent  to  the  religious  ques¬ 
tions  ot  the  hour  ;  but  entirely  practical  and  altogether 
adapted  to  those  requirements  which  had  to  be  met  with 
special  rules  and  instructions,  delivered  to  the  Legate — 
himself  a  skilled  theologian  not  needing  to  be  taught 
the  elements  of  theology.  “  For  since  the  faculties  given 
to  the  Apostolic  Legate  by  these  Popes  had  reference 
merely  to  England  and  to  the  state  of  religion  therein, 
the  practical  rules,  which  they  delivered  in  answer  to  his 
request,  could  by  no  means  have  been  directed  to  deter¬ 
mining  the  general  question  as  to  the  requisites  for  valid 
ordination,  but  necessarily  concerned  the  particular  point 
of  providing  for  ordinations  in  England,  under  the 
circumstances  and  conditions  represented  as  then  pre¬ 
vailing.” 

In  the  Brief  of  Julius  III.,  ordinations  not  made  in 
forma  Ecclesiae  CONSUETA  are  declared  invalid.  The 
particular  matter  here  treated  of  was,  therefore,  the 
ordination  conferred  with  the  new  form ,  which  having 
been  but  three  years  in  existence,  having  been  used  only 
in  England  in  a  few  cases,  could  not  possibly  be  called 
the  forma  Ecclesiae  consueta.  Further,  in  the  particular 
case  of  the  Brief  of  Paul  IV.,  if  his  declaration  did  not 
relate  expressly  to  the  episcopal  ordinations  performed 
during  the  schism  with  the  Edwardine  Ordinal ,  but,  as 
these  critics  would  have  it,  to  the  abstract  question  of  the 
solution  of  which  there  was  never  a  doubt,  (sc.  whether 
the  essential  sacramental  form  was  necessary  for  the  valid¬ 
ity  of  ordinations)  far  from  allaying  doubt  (haesitationem 
tollere),  or  smoothing  consciences  (serenitati  conscientiae 
consulere),  he  would  have  done  just  the  contrary.  For 
in  a  matter  so  delicate,  so  fraught  with  the  danger  of 
pernicious  error,  he  would  have  left  it  to  the  private 
authority  of  each  man  to  judge  for  himself  whether  or 
not  the  essential  form  needed  for  episcopal  consecration 
was  preserved  in  the  new  Ordinal. 


68 


Anglican  Orders. 


Therefore,  as  under  Leo  XIII.,  in  1896,  so  under  Paul 
IV.  in  1555,  the  doubt,  which  was  examined  and  solved 
with  reference  to  certain  particular  ordinations,  con¬ 
cerned  most  especially  the  form  according  to  which  they 
were  conferred.  That  form  was  judged  by  Paul  IV.  to 
be  substantially  different  from  the  forma  Ecclesiae  and 
therefore  all  the  episcopal  ordinations  derived  from  it 
were  pronounced  invalid — a  fact  which  is  manifestly  con¬ 
firmed  by  the  most  practical  and  important  consequence 
deduced  from  it  by  Paul  IV.  in  the  same  Brief :  “And 
therefore,”  he  concludes,  “  we  declare  the  persons 
ordained  by  those  bishops  not  to  have  received  Orders ; 
and  that  they  ought  to  and  must  forthwith  receive  the 
same  Orders  from  their  Ordinary,  according  to  the  con¬ 
tent  and  tenor  of  Our  Letter  aforesaid.” 

In  the  investigations  which  Leo  XIII.  caused  to  be 
made  preparatory  to  his  Bull,  it  was  furthermore  ob¬ 
served  (and  to  our  mind  not  without  foundation)  that 
up  to  the  time  of  Paul  IV. ,  owing  to  the  great  confusion 
caused  in  the  English  episcopate  by  Henry  VIII.,  fol¬ 
lowed  by  the  open  heresy  under  Edward  VI.,  it  was  not 
quite  evident  to  all  that  the  ordinations  had  been  inval¬ 
idated,  not  merely  by  defect  of  form,  but  also  in  many 
cases  by  the  absence  of  episcopal  character  in  the 
ordainers,  and  that  this  being  known  to  Paul  IV.,  he 
provided  for  the  need  in  the  restrictive  clause  quoted 
above.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  certain  that  if  epis¬ 
copal  character  was  lacking  in  the  ordainers,  the  defect, 
according  to  the  mind  of  Paul  IV.,  was  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  inherent  vice  of  the  new  form  of  the  Edwardine 
Ordinal  with  which  they  had  been  consecrated.  But, 
some  one  may  say,  if  the  thing  is  so  very  clear  as  that, 
how  comes  it  that  in  the  past  two  years  some  writers, 
even  Catholics,  have  stood  up  for  the  validity,  or  at 
least  the  doubtful  invalidity  of  Anglican  Orders,  or 
have  maintained  that  the  question  was  still  open  and 


The  Judgment  of  Leo  XIII. 


69 


untouched  ?  To  such  an  objection  we  can  give  no  more 
crushing,  and  at  the  same  time  no  more  charitable,  reply 
than  that  of  Leo  XIII. ,  in  his  Bull :  ‘  ‘  Perchance  because 
the  documents  of  the  Apostolic  See  were  not  as  well 
known  as  they  should  have  been,  one  or  another  Catholic 
writer  has  not  doubted  his  liberty  to  dispute  the  matter.” 

The  Foregoing  Interpretation  Confirmed  by 

Facts. 

This  interpretation  of  the  documents  of  Julius  III.  and 
of  Paul  IV.  is  confirmed  by  the  line  of  action  pursued  on 
all  occasions  by  the  Legate  in  the  solution  of  particular 
cases,  and  by  a  host  of  other  facts,  which  history  records, 
closely  connected  with  their  publication  in  England. 
This  same  confirmation  is  indicated  by  Leo  XIII.,  in  his 
Bull,  with  the  usual  brevity  and  clearness:  “And  it 
was  in  this  sense  that  the  Legate  understood  the  instruc¬ 
tions  and  orders  of  the  Apostolic  See,  and  in  this  sense 
that  he  duly  and  religiously  obeyed  them.” 

Among  the  many  records  which  fully  justify  this  pas¬ 
sage  of  the  Bull,  we  find  two  letters  of  the  Cardinal 
Legate  ;  the  first  directed  to  the  English  Sovereigns 
Mary  and  Philip,1  dated  December  24,  1554  ;  the  other 
to  the  Bishop  of  Norwich,2  dated  January  29,  1555.  In 
the  first,  Cardinal  Pole  declares  that  he  has,  in  virtue 
of  the  faculties  conferred  on  him  by  the  Holy  See, 
already  dispensed,  and  is  further  prepared  to  dispense 
those  who,  through  defect  of  jurisdiction  and  relying  on 
the  pretended  supremacy  of  the  Anglican  Church,  “  had 
nulliter  et  de  Jacto  obtained  dispensations,  concessions, 
graces  and  indults,  whether  Orders  or  benefices  or  other 
spiritual  matters.” 

But  as  he  himself  explicitly  adds,  this  refers  solely  to 

1  Statute  2  of  Philip  and  Mary,  c.  8 ;  Doc.  ad  leg.  Poli  spect  ,  pp. 
31-34. 

2  Pocock’s  Burnet,  v..  vi.,  p.  361  ;  Doc.,  etc.  pp.  9-12. 


70 


Anglican  Orders. 


that  nullity  which  derives  from  defect  of  jurisdiction-^ 
quoad  nullitatem  ex  defectu  jurisdictionis  prefatae  tantum 
insurgentem. 

But  what  the  Legate  himself  did,  and  what  his  dele¬ 
gates  were  to  do,  when  the  nullity  arose  not  only  from 
defect  of  jurisdiction,  but,  further,  from  invalid  ordina¬ 
tion,  is  told  us  in  the  other  letter.  For  there  His  Emi¬ 
nence  delegates  to  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  some  of  the 
faculties  which  he  himself  had  received  from  the  Pope, 
and  amongst  them  that  of  admitting  to  the  exercise  of 
their  Orders  (in  suis  ordinibus')  those  ecclesiastics  who 
had  been  ordained  by  schismatical  or  heretical  bishops, 
provided  they  had  been  ordained  with  the  Catholic  rite : 
“ Dummodo  in  eorum  ( ordinum )  collatione  Ecclesiae  forma 
et  intentio  sit  servata.  But  if  instead,  they  had  been 
ordained  with  the  new  Edwardine  Ordinal  (and  there 
were  no  other  rites  than  these  two  known  in  England 
at  that  time),  then  the  said  ecclesiastics  should  be 
regarded  as  not  ordained,  and  as  such  ad  omnes  etiam 
sacros  et  Presbyteratus  ordines  a  suis  ordinariis ,  si  digni 
et  idonei  reperti  fuerint ,  rite  et  legitime  promoveri .” 

Further,  that  the  Catholic  rite,  the  Ecclesiae  forma  et 
intentio ,  of  which  the  Cardinal  Legate  speaks  in  this 
letter  of  1555,  was  precisely  the  ancient  Pontifical  is 
evident  from  the  formal  question  which  had  to  be  put  to 
each  of  the  said  ecclesiastics :  Utrum  ante  octo  annos 
fuerint  ordinati j  i.  e .,  whether  they  had  been  ordained 
before  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.  (1547),  when  the 
Catholic  Pontifical  was  still  in  use  universally  and 
exclusively. 

“  Idque  pariter  factum  est  a  Regina  Maria.’’  Queen 
Mary  interpreted  the  Pontifical  documents  in  precisely 
the  same  sense.  What  Leo  XIII.  here  says  is  proved 
historically  by  the  Acts  of  that  Queen.  Suffice  it  to 

i  Harleian  MSS.  421.  In  about  forty  cases  the  accused  are  interro¬ 
gated  as  to  whether  their  Orders  were  received  “  ante  octo  annos.” 


The  Judgment  of  Leo  XIII. 


n 


recall  her  celebrated  decree,  already  referred  to,  against 
ecclesiastics  ordained  “  secundum  modum  ordinandi 
noviter  fabricatum .” 

It  is  also  well  known  that  Mary,  authorized  by  the 
Legate,  deposed  from  their  sees  all  those  “bishops” 
(Taylor,  Harley  and  the  rest)  who  had  been  consecrated 
with  the  Ordinal  of  her  brother  Edward.  We  have 
before  us  the  processes  of  these  depositions,  together 
with  the  reasons  on  which  the  sentences  were  based. 
Against  Taylor  we  read :  Privatus  ob  nullitatem  conse¬ 
crationis  ;  against  Harley  we  read  in  addition  :  Privatus 
propter  coniugium  et  haeresim;  et  ut  supra,  (i.  e.  ob 
nullitatem  consecrationis)} 

i  “  The  Register  of  Canterbury,  in  which  all  these  deprivations  are 
recorded,  (*.  e.,  of  Holgate  of  York,  consc.  1537 ;  Ferrer  of  St. 
David’s,  consc.  1548 ;  Bird  of  Chester,  cons.  1537  ;  Bush  of  Bristol, 
cons.  1542,  and  also  of  Taylor  of  Lincoln,  cons.  1552  ;  Hooper  of 
Gloucester,  cons.  1551;  Harlowe  of  Hereford,  cons.  1553 ;  see  Pocock’s 
Burnet,  ii.  pp.  440--1),  testifieth  that  on  the  20th  of  March,  1554,  the 
Bishops  of  Winchester,  London,  Chichester  and  Durham,  by  virtue 
of  the  Queen’s  commission  directed  to  them,  pronounced  the  sentence 
of  deprivation  upon  John  Taylor,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  ob  nullitatem 
consecrationis  ejus  et  defectum  tituli  quem  habuit  a  Rege  Edwardo 
Sexto ,  per  literas patentes  cum  hac  clausula ,  dummodo  bene  se  g essent ; 
upon  John  Hooper,  Bishop  of  Worcester  and  Gloucester,  propter 
conjugium  et  alia  mala  merita  et  vitiosum  titulum  ut  supra ;  upon 
John  Harlowe,  Bishop  of  Hereford ,  propter  conjugium ,  et  haeresim , 
etut  supra;  upon  John  Bird,  Bishop  of  Chester,  propter  conjugium. 
No  sentence  cf  deprivation  was  pronounced  at  that  time  upon  Bush, 
Bishop  of  Bristol.  Whether  he  evaded  it  by  renouncing  his  marriage, 
or  by  any  other  submission,  is  uncertain.  But  he  was  never  deposed# 
However,  willingly  or  unwillingly,  he  resigned  his  bishopric  in  June 
following.  For  in  the  same  Register  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of 
Canterbury  assumed  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  the  See  of  Bristol, 
void  per  spontaneum  resignaiionem  Pauli  Bushe,  1554,  June  21.” 

This  extract,  given  by  Pocock  as  foot-note  to  Burnet,  II,  p.  441, 
is  from  Antony  Harmer’s  Specimens  of  Errors ,  p.  133.  Antony  Har* 
mer  ,is  a  nom  de plume  assumed  by  Henry  Wharton,  the  author  of 
Anglia  Sacra,  who  in  1693  wrote  it  under  the  full  title  of  A  specimen  of 
some  errors  and  defects  in  the  History  of  the  Reformation  of  the 
Church  of  England,  by  Antony  Harmer. 


72 


Anglican  Orders. 


Similar  to  the  Queen’s  action  was  the  action  of  those 
who,  as  Leo  XIII.  says  in  the  same  passage,  labored 
with  her  for  the  restitution  of  the  Catholic  religion  to  its 
former  ascendency.  ( Cum  ea  dederunt  operam  ut  religio 
et  instituta  catholica  in  pristinum  locum  restituerentur.') 
Let  the  two  illustrious  bishops,  Gilbert  Bourne  of  Bath 
and  Wells,  and  Bonner,  Pole’s  chief  commissioner  for 
the  diocese  of  London,  bear  witness  for  the  rest.  The 
former  in  a  letter  to  his  Vicar  General,  John  Cottrell, 
April  8,  1554,  orders  him  to  proceed  against  the  pretended 
marriages  of  priests,  secular  and  regular,  “  nec  non  in 
eos  laicos  conjugatos  qui  praetextu  et  sub  velamine 
presbyteratus  ordinis ,  sese  in  juribus  ecclesiasticis 
temere  et  illicite  immiscuerunt  ac  ecclesias  parochiales 
cum  cura  animarum  et  dignitates  ecclesiasticas  contra 
sacras  canonum  sanctiones  et  jura  ecclesiastica  de  facto 
assecuti  fuerunt,”  i.  e .,  “and  against  those  married  lay¬ 
men  who,  under  pretence  and  cover  of  priestly  Order, 
have  audaciously  and  unlawfully  arrogated  to  themselves 
ecclesiastical  rights,  and  have,  contrary  to  the  sacred 
canonical  sanctions  and  laws  of  the  Church,  obtained  de 
facto  ecclesiastical  dignities  and  parish  churches  with 
the  care  of  souls  attached.”1  That  these  intruders  sub 
velamine  presbyteratus  ordinis  were  those  who  had  been 
ordained  with  the  Edwardine  rite  can  hardly  be  denied, 
in  view  of  the  care  taken  to  ascertain,  in  such  cases  as 
those  previously  referred  to,  whether  their  ordination 
had  taken  place  at  least  eight  years  previously — that  is, 
before  the  introduction  of  the  Edwardine  Ordinal. 

Bishop  Bonner  is  still  more  explicit  and  writes  thus : 
“These  pseudo-ministers  ( ministelli ),  who  were  created 
during  the  schism,  have  received,  through  this  newly- 
forged  Ordinal,  no  power  of  offering  the  Body  and  Blood 

i  Harleian,  MSS.  6967,  f.  58.  Cf.  Strype,  Eccles.  Mem.  Ed.  Oxon. 

v.  352» 


The  Judgment  of  Leo  XIII. 


73 


of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Mass.”1  For  the  rest  it  is  an  in¬ 
disputable  historical  fact  that  in  the  reign  of  Mary  no 
bishop  or  minister  ordained  with  the  Edwardine  Ordinal 
was  ever  admitted  by  the  Legate  or  by  the  Papal  com¬ 
missioners  Gardiner  and  Brooks,  or  by  the  other  Cath¬ 
olic  bishops,  to  the  exercise  of  the  Orders  conferred 
upon  him  by  the  new  rite ;  that  no  account  whatever 
was  made  of  such  orders  ;  and  that  therefore  whenever 
one  of  the  said  bishops  or  ministers  was  condemned 
for  heresy  he  was  never  subjected,  like  those  validly 
ordained,  to  the  penalty  of  degradation. 

It  is  true  that  some  critics,  following  apparently  the 
lead  of  Dr.  Lee,  have  lately  asserted  that  four  bishops, 
Thirlby,  Wharton,  Aldrich  and  King,  although  conse¬ 
crated  with  the  Edwardine  Ordinal,  were  rehabilitated 
and  recognized  as  true  bishops  by  the  Legate.  But 
their  assertion  is  plainly  shown  to  be  false,  since  it  ap¬ 
pears  from  authentic  documents  that  they  had  received 
episcopal  consecration  according  to  the  rite  of  the  Cath¬ 
olic  Pontifical.  For  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  English 
Episcopal  Registers  witness  that  the  whole  four  were 
consecrated  prior  to  1550,  when  the  Edwardine  Ordinal 
was  not  yet  in  existence — Thirlby  in  1540,  Wharton  in 
1536,  Aldrich  in  1537,  and  King  in  1536. 

The  Practice  of  Reordaining  Anglican  Bishops 
and  Ministers,  since  1555. 

To  the  facts  above  cited,  which  the  past  and  present 
defenders  of  Anglican  Orders  have  vainly  essayed  to 
deny,  we  must  add  another  which  alone  would  be  a  full 
and  evident  confirmation  of  the  interpretation  given  in 
his  Bull  by  Leo  XIII.  to  the  Acts  of  Julius  III.  and 
Paul  IV.  It  is  as  follows  :  “  Under  the  reign  of  Mar}’’, 

i  See  the  Preface  to  his  Profitable  and  Necessary  Doctrine ,  (ap. 
Estcourt,  p.  58). 


74 


Anglican  Orders. 


and  from  the  very  day  when  the  Legate  published  the 
t  Bull  of  Paul  IV.  in  England  (Sept.  22,  1555),  began  the 
practice,  followed  without  interruption  up  to  our  own 
times  not  only  in  England,  but  in  France,  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Papal  Rome  itself  and  everywhere, 
of  ordaining  as  simple  laymen  without  any  condition, 
de  novo  et  ex  integro ,  those  Anglican  bishops  and  min¬ 
isters  who,  having  returned  to  the  bosom  of  the  Church, 
desired  to  consecrate  themselves  to  the  service  of  the 

altar,” 

/  r 

The  ancient  episcopal  registers,  lately  examined  in 
England,  bear  witness  to  this  fact  in  fourteen  distinct 
cases,  whereof  eight  were  in  the  diocese  of  London. 
We  are  speaking  here  of  ecclesiastics  ordained  with 
the  Edwardine  ritual,  who  between  1555  and  1558 
de  novo  et  ex  integro  eosdem  ordines  susceperunt 

Dr.  Brown,  the  Anglican  Bishop  of  Stepney,  has  con¬ 
firmed  and  commented  on  this  fact  in  a  recent  letter  to 
the  London  Times  (May  1,  1896). 

On  the  death  of  Pole  (Nov.  18,  1558),  and  after  the 
destruction  of  the  Catholic  hierarchy  in  England  by 
Elizabeth,  those  who  had  been  converted  under  Mary 
were  forced  to  seek  refuge  in  other  countries  from  the 
cruel  and  persistent  persecution  which  raged  against 
them  at  home.  We  find  them  in  France,  in  Flanders, 
in  Rome  and  elsewhere.  Canon  Estcourt,  in  his  classical 
work  already  quoted  so  often,1  speaking  of  those  who 
had  sought  an  asylum  in  France,  publishes  a  list  of 
converted  Anglican  ministers  who  were  unconditionally 
reordained  in  the  years  1575,  ’77,  ’78,  ’79,  ’80,  ’81,  1601, 
etc.  The  same  fact  is  witnessed  to  by  the  documents 
preserved  at  Rome  in  the  Archives  of  the  Holy  Office, 
and  of  the  English  College.  From  one  of  these  docu¬ 
ments — seemingly  of  1686 — we  learn  that  in  Scotland 

•  •  f 

i  The  Question  of  Anglican  Ordinations.  London,  1873. 


The  Judgment  of  Leo  XIII. 


75 


also  the  same  discipline  prevailed  “  of  receiving  and 
treating  as  simple  laymen  those  Anglican  and  Scottish 
bishops  and  priests  who  returned  to  the  Catholic  faith.” 1 

Therefore  we  must  reject  as  historically  false  the 
opinion  of  those  few  who  have  recently  tried  to  prove 
that  the  said  discipline  originated,  not  from  the  Ponti¬ 
fical  Acts  of  1553-1555,  but  only  in  the  year  1704,  or  in 
the  earlier  part  of  the  eighteenth  century.2  It  is  to  this 
false  opinion,  if  we  mistake  not,  that  the  following  words 
of  the  Bull  of  Leo  XIII.  refer  :  “  The  authorities,  which 
we  have  quoted  from  Julius  III.  and  Paul  IV.,  show 
plainly  the  origin  of  that  discipline,  which  has  been 
observed  with  unbroken  continuity  for  over  three  centu¬ 
ries,  of  treating  Edwardine  ordinations  as  ineffectual 
and  null  ;  and  to  this  discipline  abundant  witness  is 
borne  by  the  record  of  many  of  the  said  ordinations 
which,  even  in  this  very  city,  have  frequently  been 
reiterated  unconditionally  according  to  the  Catholic 
rite.” 


1  From  a  Lettera  di  Mgr.  Ftancesco  Genetti  a  Mgr.  Casoni,  Asses¬ 
sore  del  S.  Ufficio. 

2  It  is  indeed  strange  that  these  critics,  taking  their  stand  on  a 
supposed  decree  of  the  Holy  Office  in  1704,  did  not  advert  to  the  fact 
that  their  assertion  is  expressly  denied  in  the  text  of  the  very  decree 
which  they  publish.  Thus  in  the  text  which  Gasparri  ( De  la  valeur 
des  Ordinations  Anglicanes,  Paris,  1895,  pp.  16-18)  gives  us  under  the 
heading  “  Void  le  texte  tout  entier  du  ddcret,”  we  read :  “  Constans 
semper  fuit  in  Anglia  praxis  ut  si  quis  haereticorum  Ministrorum  ad 
gremium  revertatur  Ecclesiae  saecularis  instar  habeatur.  Unde,  si 
ligatus  sit  matrimonio,  in  eodem  permaneat ;  sin  liber  et  ad  statum 
ecclesiasticum  transire  velit  aliorum  catholicorum  more  ordinetur,  vel, 
si  libuerit,  uxorem  ducat.”  ( “  It  has  always  been  the  constant  prac¬ 
tice  in  England  whenever  any  one  of  the  heretical  ministers  returned 
to  the  bosom  of  the  Catholic  Church  to  treat  him  as  a  layman— so  that 
if  he  was  joined  in  matrimony,  he  should  remain  therein,  and  if  he 
was  free  and  desired  to  pass  into  the  ecclesiastical  state,  he  should  be 
ordained  just  like  any  other  Catholic,  or  if  hie  desired  it,  he  should 
take  a  wife.”) 


76 


Anglican  Orders. 


The  Case  of  John  Gordon. 

But  if  the  year  1704  does  not  mark  the  beginning  of  the 
practice  in  question,  it  certainly  does  mark  the  beginning 
of  a  new  series  of  documents  from  the  Holy  See  wherein 
that  practice  was  solemnly  confirmed  and  pronounced 
obligatory. 

For  in  this  year  a  question  was  put  to  the  Congrega¬ 
tion  of  the  Holy  Office  touching  the  Orders  received  by 
a  certain  John  C.  Gordon,  Protestant  Bishop  of  Glasgow, 
who  on  his  conversion  to  Catholicism  wished  to  serve 
the  Church  in  the  ecclesiastical  state.  Gordon,  it  is  to 
be  noted,  had  been  ordained  not  with  the  Edwardine 
Ordinal  of  1550,  on  which  Julius  III.  and  Paul  IV.  had 
pronounced  sentence,  but  with  the  modified  Edwardine 
Ordinal  of  1662.  From  the  authentic  Acts  of  the  said 
Congregation  it  seems  that  the  doubt  was  proposed  to  the 
Consultors  for  examination  on  March  10,  1704  ;  and  after 
two  weeks  they  gave  their  votum  :  ‘  ‘  Quod  praedictus 

Johannes  Clemens  Gordon  ordinetur  ex  integro .”  On 
Wednesday,  the  26th  of  the  same  month,  “  Emi  dixerunt 
quod  inclusae  scripturae  mittantur  per  manus  eorumdem 
Emorum.  ”  What  these  ‘  ‘  inclusae  scripturae  ”  were  will 
be  seen  from  the  decree,  which  we  quote  in  full.  It  is 
moreover  certain  that  the  doubt  was  discussed  and  studied 
from  the  very  beginning  for  the  space  of  thirty-six  days, 
as  well  by  the  Consultors  as  by  their  Eminences,  the  In¬ 
quisitors  General.  The  genuine  decree,  whose  text  is 
here  published  for  the  first  time,  runs  as  follows  : 

“  On  Thursday  ( Feria  V.)  the  17th  day  of  April,  1704, 
in  the  accustomed  Congregation  of  the  H.  R.  and  Uni¬ 
versal  Inquisition,  held  in  the  Palace  of  St.  Peter,  in 
the  presence  of  our  Most  Holy  Lord  Clement,  Pope,  the 
Eleventh. 

“The  petition  ( instantia )  of  John  Clement  Gordon, 
an  Anglican  Bishop,  converted  to  the  Catholic  faith, 


The  Judgment  of  Leo  XIII. 


77 


being  presented,  and  (together  with  it)  certain  docu¬ 
ments  or  authorities  ( juribus )  otherwise  collected  for 
the  sake  of  a  similar  case,  although  it  (the  similar  case) 
was  not  decided,  or  at  least  no  decree  was  made  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  it,  together  (also)  with  the  Votum  of  the  Con- 
suitors,  by  which  (petition)  he  begged  that,  notwith¬ 
standing  this  episcopal  consecration  received  from  Bish¬ 
ops  of  the  Anglican  sect,  and  by  the  accustomed  rite 
of  those  pseudo-Bishops,  he  may  be  granted  leave  to 
pass  to  the  reception  of  the  order  of  the  Priesthood  by 
the  Catholic  rite,  on  the  ground  that  his  consecration  to 
the  episcopate  is  null,  both  on  account  of  the  want  of 
legitimate  succession  of  the  Bishops  in  England  and 
Scotland  who  had  consecrated  him,  and  also  on  account 
of  other  reasons  by  which  his  aforesaid  consecration  is 
rendered  null. 

“  The  Most  Holy  (Lord),  having  heard  the  vota  of  the 
Most  Eminent  Cardinals,  decreed  that  John  Clement 
Gordon  be  ordained  fully  and  absolutely  (ex  integro  et 
absolute')  to  all  the  orders  and  particularly  to  that  of 
Priesthood,  and,  inasmuch  as  he  has  not  been  confirmed, 
that  he  first  receive  the  Sacrament  of  Confirmation.” 

It  is  needless  to  observe  that  this  was  not  strictly 
speaking  a  decree  of  the  Holy  Office  afterwards  con¬ 
firmed  by  the  Pope,  as  has  been  stated  and  printed  dur¬ 
ing  the  controversy  of  the  last  two  years  ;  but  was  truly 
a  decree  emanating  from  the  Pope  himself,  Sanctissimus 
decrevit. 

The  “  scripturae  et  jura  alias  collecta  pro  simili  casu” 
alluded  to  in  the  decree,  are  the  vota  and  acts  of  the 
same  Congregation  relative  to  a  case  proposed  to  them 
on  the  24th  of  July,  1684,  by  the  Bishop  of  Fano,  Apos¬ 
tolic  Nuncio  to  Paris.  The  case  was  that  of  “a  young 
Calvinist  heretic,  who  passing  from  France  into  Eng¬ 
land,  had  there  been  ordained  to  the  diaconate  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  use  of  that  sect ;  and  afterwards  to  the  pres- 


7« 


Anglican  Orders. 


byterate  by  the  pseudo-Bishop  of  London.  Having  come 
back  to  France  and  embraced  the  Catholic  faith  he  now 
wanted  to  marry.”  Were  his  orders  valid  so  as  to  con¬ 
stitute  an  impediment  to  matrimony? 

Of  this  case  the  Holy  Father  writes  as  follows  in  his 
Bull :  “After  a  careful  investigation, 1  some  of  the  Con- 
suitors  gave  their  answers,  or  vota  as  they  are  called,  in 
writing,  and  the  rest  united  with  them  in  their  sentence 
pro  invaliditate  ordinationis ;  yet  having  respect  to  the 
opportuneness  of  the  decision  it  seemed  good  to  the 
Cardinals  to  defer  the  matter.2  If,  then,  a  final  decision 
was  not  given  in  this  case,  it  was  not  because  their 
Eminences,  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Congregation, 
had  any  doubt  as  to  the  justice  of  the  Consultors’  reso¬ 
lution,  but  for  an  altogether  extrinsic  motive,  as  is  plain 
from  contemporary  acts,  and  especially  from  the  vote  of 
Cardinal  Casanata,  who  acted  as  Relator .3 

Furthermore,  from  the  fact  that  eadem  acta  repetita 
et  ponderata  sunt  in  Gordon’s  case,  we  are  enabled  to 

1  On  that  occasion  also  a  special  commission  was  instituted. 
Mgr.  Genetti,  who  was  on  it,  wrote  thus  concerning  it  to  the  Holy 
Office  in  a  “Relation”  dated  April  15,  1704:  “The  question 
being  of  great  consequence,  and  requiring  frequently  to  be  acted 
upon,  several  Congregations  were  held  to  consider  it,  in  which  Mgr. 
Leyborn  presided,  and  seven  or  eight  of  the  most  learned  theologians 
from  among  the  English  clergy  took  part,  among  whom  were  Mr. 
Gifford,  afterwards  Bishop  and  Vicar  Apostolic,  Mr.  Bettan,  now 
tutor  to  the  King  of  England,  and  other  doctors  of  the  Sorbonne 
and  of  Douay,  all  men  of  professed  learning.” 

2  The  original  text  of  the  Consultors’  resolution  is  as  follows : 
Feria  II.  die  13  Augusti,  1685.  DD.  CC.,  mature  discusso  dubio, 
unanimi  voto  responderunt  pro  invaliditate  praedictae  ordinationis. 
An  autem  expediat  ad  hanc  declarationem  in  praesenti  casu  devenire 
EE.  PP.  oraculo  reliquerunt. 

3  In  the  years  1684  and  16S5  England  was  much  disturbed  about 
the  religious  question,  and  the  Cardinals,  abiding  by  the  vote  of  the 
Relator ,  prudently  decided  to  abstain  from  an  act  which  then  might 
have  created  new  difficulties  for  James  II.  in  his  endeavors  to  restore 
the  Catholic  religion. 


The  Judgment  of  Teo  XIII. 


79 


understand  the  motives  on  which  the  decree  of  Clement 
XI.  was  founded.  From  the  number  of  these  motives 
must  be  excluded,  before  all,  the  legend  concerning 
Parker’s  consecration.  In  fact,  it  is  repeatedly  insisted 
in  those  Acta  (of  1684 — 6  and  of  1704)  that:  “In  a  mat¬ 
ter  so  grave,  a  resolution  of  such  consequence  cannot  be 
rested  on  a  fact  contradicted  both  by  Catholics  and 
Protestants;”  that  “the  adequate  decision  must  be 
drawn,  not  from  the  facts  of  Parker’s  case,  which 
depended  on  so  entangled  a  narrative,  but  from  the 
insufficient  intention  and  words  used  by  the  Anglican 
heretics  in  the  ordering  of  priests  ,”  that  “  the  chief 
point  to  discuss  was  the  Edwardine  Ordinal,  which 
remained  in  full  vigor  for  over  a  hundred  years ;  and  the 
same  as  somewhat  modified  under  Charles  II.  in  1662 
that  such  an  examination  was  made  having  due  regard 
to  the  Oriental  forms,  and  that  for  that  reason  “  the 
formulas  and  prayers  used  by  the  Armenians,  Maro¬ 
nites,  Syrians,  Jacobites,  Nestorians,  Catholic  and  heret¬ 
ical  alike,  had  been  then  translated  and  studied  that, 
more  particularly  in  1704,  “duobus  vel  tribus  novis  Votis 
fuit  denuo  demonstrata  nullitas  istarum  ordinationum, 
potissimum  ex  insufficientia  formae.”  (“The  nullity  of 
•these  ordinations  was  demonstrated  afresh  by  two  or 
three  new  Votay  and  that,  more  particularly  from  the 
insufficiency  of  the  form.”)  This  fact,  although 
expressly  stated  in  the  authoritative  decree  of  Clement 
XI. ,  seems  to  have .  escaped  the  notice  of  Mr.  Lacey, 
who  writes:  “There  is  no  trace  of  any  independent 
inquiry  at  the  time  when  the  Gordon  case  actually  came 
on.”  ( Guardian ,  Dec.  9,  1896,  p.  1982.)  Whence  it 
appears  how  justly  the  Holy  Father  observes,  that 
although  the  Anglican  Bishop  Gordon  himself  in  his 
pro-memoria  enumerates  the  Parkerian  legend  among 
the  causes  of  the  nullity  of  his  own  consecration,  never¬ 
theless  in  sententia  ferenda  omnino  seposita  est  ea  causa 


8o 


Anglican  Orders. 


ut  documenta  produnt  integrae  fidei ,  neque  alia  ratio  est 
reputata  nisi  defectus  formae  et  intentionis.  (“  In  the  de¬ 
livery  of  the  decision  this  reason  was  altogether  set 
aside ,  as  documents  of  incontestable  authenticity  prove , 
nor  was  any  weight  whatever  attached  to  any  other 
reason  than  that  of  the  defect  of  form  and  intention .”) 
And  it,  in  the  exposition  of  the  case  which  is  reported 
in  the  genuine  text  of  the  decree,  express  mention  is 
made  of  the  defect  of  legitimate  episcopal  succession, 
such  defect  is  to  be  reduced  to  that  of  invalidity  of  form, 
by  which  the  bishops  being  spurious  the  succession 
deriving  from  them  must  also  be  spurious,  as  Paul  IV. 
had  already  decided,  and  as  was  explicitly  stated  in  the 
relation  introductory  to  the  decree. 

From  the  same  Acts ,  concerning  the  two  cases  exam¬ 
ined  by  the  Holy  Office  in  1684-6  and  1704/  it  is 
equally  evident  that,  if  the  question  of  the  traditio 
instrumentorum ,  which  has  no  place  in  the  Anglican 
Ordinal,  was  touched  upon,  it  was  not  in  order  to  prove 
an  essential  defect,  but  only  to  show  ‘  ‘  if  this  also  was 
wanting,  then  all  determination  of  the  words  used  in 
the  form ,  all  specification  of  the  power  to  be  -conferred 
was  likewise  wanting.”  For  what  theologian  does  not 
know  that,  even  at  that  time,  according  to  the  jurispru¬ 
dence  of  the  Holy  Office,2  such  a  detect  was  not  consid¬ 
ered  a  certain  proof  ot  nullity,  and,  therefore,  as  the 
Holy  Father  says  in  his  Bull :  “  Tunc  praescriptum  de 

more  erat  ut  ordinatio  sub  conditione  instauraretur?” 

% 

(“It  was  at  that  time  prescribed  by  custom  that  the 
ordination  should  be  repeated  conditionally.”) 

Finally,  it  must  be  observed  that  although  the  decree 
of  Clement  XI.  has  reference  to  the  particular  case  of 

1  The  same  must  be  said  of  the  Acta  in  the  subsequent  cases 
examined  by  the  same  Congregation,  down  to  that  laid  before  it  in 
1874  by  the  Archbishop  of  Westminster. 

2  Cf.  Arch.  S.  O.  De  Ordinibus  Sacris,  from  1603  to  1699. 


The  Judgment  of  Eeo  XIII. 


81 


Gordon,  nevertheless  it  was  not  based  on  a  reason  pecu¬ 
liar  to  that  case  alone,  but  on  a  general  reason,  namely, 
vitium  formae ,  which  affects  equally  all  orders  conferred 
by  the  same  form.  In  an  ancient  document  of  the  Holy 
Office  it  is  noted  expressly :  Summus  Pontifex  pronunti¬ 
avit  judicium  directe  quidem  de  facto  in  casu  speciali 
proposito,  indirecte  vero  de  jure  generali  invaliditatis 
Ordinum  Anglicanorum.  (“  The  Pope  passed  judgment, 
directly,  indeed,  as  to  the  fact  in  the  particular  case 
under  consideration ;  but  indirectly  as  to  the  general 
question  of  the  validity  of  Anglican  Orders.”)  The 
Sacred  Congregation,  ruling  itself  by  this  interpreta¬ 
tion  and  confirming  it  by  its  subsequent  Acts ,  has 
always,  in  dealing  with  similar  cases,  answered  by  quot¬ 
ing  and  applying  the  Decree  of  Clement  XI. 

Therefore,  the  practice  of  ordaining  ex  integro  and 
unconditionally  those  ordained  with  the  Anglican  rite 
has  been  constantly  observed  in  the  Church  from  1555 
to  1704,  and  thence  to  our  own  days — i.  e.y  for  three  cen¬ 
turies  and  a  half.  The  thirty-four  Popes,  who  during 
that  interval  have  occupied  the  Chair  of  Peter,  have  not 
been  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  this  practice  and  have 
not  only  tolerated,  but  formally  sanctioned  and  approved 
it.  Whence  we  deduce  the  following  weighty  theologi¬ 
cal  argument  :  “  Quoniam,”  says  the  Holy  Father  in  his 
Bull,  “firmum  semper  ratumque  in  Ecclesia  mansit, 
ordinis  sacramentum  nefas  esse  iterari,  fieri  nullo  pacto 
poterat  ut  talem  consuetudinem  Apostolica  Sedes  patere¬ 
tur  tacita  ac  toleraret.  Atqui  eam  non  toleravit  solum 
sed  probavit  etiam  et  sancit  ipsa,  quotiescumque  in 
eadem  re  peculiare  aliquod  factum  incidit  judicandum.” 
(“  Since  in  the  Church  it  has  ever  been  a  constant  and 
established  rule  that  it  is  sacrilegious  to  repeat  the 
Sacrament  of  Orders,  it  never  could  have  come  to  pass 
that  the  Apostolic  See  should  have  silently  acquiesced 
in  and  tolerated  such  a  custom.  But  not  only  did  the 


82 


Anglican  Orders. 


Apostolic  See  tolerate  this  practice,  but  approved  and 
sanctioned  it  as  often  as  any  particular  case  arose 
which  called  for  its  judgment  in  the  matter.”) 

Such  is,  so  to  say,  the  extrinsic  argument  against  the 
validity  of  Anglican  Orders.  But  this  is  not  the  only, 
nor  the  principal  one  on  which  Leo  XIII.  has  based  his 
sentence.  There  still  remains  the  intrinsic  argument,  to 
which  we  must  now  turn  our  attention. 


PART  III 


DEFECT  OF  FORM  AND  INTENTION. 


In  the  preceding  paragraphs  a  study  of  the  Pontifical 
documents,  and  of  the  decree  of  the  Holy  Office,  rela¬ 
tive  to  Anglican  Orders,  assured  us  as  to  the  mind  of  the 
Popes,  and  the  constant  practice  of  the  Holy  See  in  that 
matter,  from  the  first  examination  of  the  question  in 
1 553  up  to  our  own  days.  The  clear  and  irrefragable 
conclusion  of  our  study  is  that  which  we  read  in  the 
Bull  of  Leo  XIII.  :  “  Controversiam  temporibus  nostris 
excitatam  Apostolicae  Sedis  judicio  definitam  multo  antea 
fuisse .”  This  authoritative  declaration  from  the  infal¬ 
lible  teacher  of  the  Church,  and  faithful  guardian  of  her 
divinely  instituted  sacraments,  would  have  been  more 
than  enough  to  put  an  end  to  the  unseasonable  polemics 
which  were  engaging  the  minds  of  certain  Catholic 
writers.  But  the  Holy  Father,  in  his  paternal  solicitude 
and  enlightened  wisdom,  wished  to  do  still  more : 
“Quoniam,”  he  writes,  “nihil  nobis  antiquius  optati- 
usque  est  quam  ut  hominibus  recte  animatis  maxima 
possimus  indulgentia  et  caritate  prodesse,  ideo  jussimus 
in  Ordinale  Anglicanum,  quod  caput  est  totius  causae, 
rursus  quam  studiosissime  inquiri.”  To  the  extrinsic 
he  has  chosen  to  add  an  intrinsic  argument,  thus  mak¬ 
ing  our  assent  to  his  august  decision  reasonable  on  two 
independent  titles,  first  on  account  of  the  supreme  and 
infallible  authority  from  which  it  comes ;  secondly  by 
reason  of  the  objective  evidence  which  manifests  its 

(83) 


84 


Anglican  Orders. 


intrinsic  truth.  Such  evidence  is  derived  from  the 
Edwardine  Ordinal  itself,  which,  being  examined  both 
internally  and  in  the  light  of  its  historic  surroundings, 
displays  two  essential  defects  which  vitiate  all  orders 
conferred  by  it — absence  of  valid  form;  and  of  due 
intention . 

The  Ceremony  and  the  Essentiae  Rite  of  the 

Sacrament. 

In  the  rite  of  ordination,  as  in  that  of  the  other  sac¬ 
raments,  one  must  distinguish  accurately  the  ceremonial 
from  the  essential  part.  The  former  is  mutable  and 
required  only  for  lawfulness ,  the  latter  immutable  and 
necessary  for  validity ;  the  former  is  of  ecclesiastical, 
the  latter  of  divine  institution.  In  the  essential  part 
it  is  also  usual  to  distinguish  two  elements — matter  and 
form.  The  matter  is  the  sensible  thing  made  use  of. 
The  form  consists  of  the  words  which  determine  and 
raise  that  sensible  thing  to  the  nature  and  power  of  an 
effectual  sign  of  grace — i.  e. ,  both  to  signify  and  to  pro¬ 
duce  a  definite,  internal,  spiritual  effect.  The  matter 
of  the  Sacrament,  according  to  the  analogy  of  physical 
composition,  is  always  with  respect  to  the  form  the 
determinable  and  perfectible  element,  while  the  form 
is  that  which  determines  and  perfects  it.  Thus  in  Bap¬ 
tism,  which  the  Apostle  defines  as  Lavacrum  aquae  in 
verbo  vitae ,  the  washing  with  water  is  the  sensible 
thing  used,  or  the  matter ;  but  to  this  must  be  joined 
the  word  of  life,  or  the  form ,  which  determines  what 
this  washing  means,  and  together  with  it  constitutes 
the  entire  sacramental  symbol,  which  has  the  specific 
power  of  cleansing  and  sanctifying  the  soul. 

What  is  true  of  Baptism  is  true  of  Orders  and  of  all 
the  Sacraments  of  the  New  Law.  In  all,  according  to 
St.  Augustine’s  well-known  dictum:  Accedit  verbum  ad 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


85 


elementum  et  Jit  sacramentum}  St.  Thomas  Aquinas, 
speaking  in  general  of  the  form  of  the  sacraments, 
expresses  himself  thus :  “  In  all  things  that  are  made 
up  of  matter  and  form  the  determining  principle  is  the 
form,  for  whose  sake  the  matter  may  be  said  to  exist 
and  by  which  it  is  brought  to  its  perfection  ;  and,  there¬ 
fore,  of  the  two  requisites  for  the  existence  of  the  com¬ 
position,  determined  form  is  more  principal  than  deter¬ 
mined  matter  ;  .  .  .  and  so,  since  in  the  sacraments 

there  are  required  certain  sensible  things  which  are,  as 
it  were,  the  matter  of  the  sacraments,  far  mere  requisite 
is  a  definite  form  of  words.”i 2 

In  other  words,  since  it  is  the  proper  function  of  the 
sacramental  form  to  limit  the  matter  of  the  sacrament  to 
a  particular  signification.,  it  is  necessary  that  the  words 
of  which  the  said  form  is^  made  up  should  exactly 
express  the  thing  to  be  signified.  For  the  form  being 
an  intrinsic  cause,  or  constitutive  element,  exerts  its 
causality  by  sharing  its  own  nature  with  and  joining  it 
to  that  of  the  matter.  “  Forma  per  se  ipsam  facit  rem 
esse  in  actu,  cum  per  essentiam  suam  sit  actus,”  the 
form  by  giving  itself  (i.  e. ,  not  by  effecting  something 
outside  itselt),  causes  the  composite  thing  to  be  of  a 
determined  nature  ;  for  it  is  in  itself  essentially  of  a 
determined  nature.3 

If,  therefore,  the  words  of  which  the  sacramental  form 
consists  have  not  of  themselves  a  definite  signification, 
they  cannot  possibly  by  their  union  with  a  sensible  ele¬ 
ment  (or  matter)  of  equally  indefinite  meaning  consti¬ 
tute  an  effectual  ( practicum )  symbol ,  which  at  once  signi¬ 
fies  that  definite  grace  which  it  produces,  and  produces 
that  definite  grace  which  it  signifies.  Whence  arises 

i  Tract.  LXXX,  in  Joan.  n.  3.  Migne,  P.  L.  XXXV,  p.  1840. 

a  Summa  Th.  Ill,  p.  q.  60,  a  7. 

3  Summa,  I.  p.,  q.  76,  a.  7. 


86 


Anglican  Orders. 


the  absolute  necessity  of  having  in  each  sacrament  a 
definite  form  peculiar  to  itself.1 

The  Want  of  a  Specifically  Determined  Form. 

And  this  is  true  in  a  very  special  manner  of  the  Sac¬ 
rament  of  Orders,  whose  matter ,  as  the  Anglicans  them¬ 
selves  allow,  consists  in  the  laying-on  of  hands.  But 
this  sign  is  not  unambiguous,  nor  does  it  of  itself  sig¬ 
nify  some  one  definite  grace.  In  fact,  it  is  common  to 
the  three  orders — Episcopate,  Priesthood  and  Diaconate 
— and  is  also  used  in  the  Sacrament  of  Confirmation. 
In  order,  therefore,  that  it  may  signify  the  grace  of 
Ordination,  rather  than  that  of  Confirmation,  and  that 
in  the  Sacrament  of  Ordination  it  may  signify  the  grace 
of  Episcopacy  rather  than  that  of  Priesthood  or  Diaco¬ 
nate,  it  needs  a  further  determination  which,  as  we  said 
above,  can  only  be  derived  from  the  form  which  signi¬ 
fies  the  gift,  the  power,  or  the  order  which  is  to  be 
conferred.2 

Now,  it  is  just  in  the  want  of  this  determination  that 
we  find  the  first,  though  not  the  only  defectus  formae , 
which  has  vitiated  all  the  Orders  conferred  with  the 
Edwardine  Ordinal,  substituted  for  the  Catholic  Pon¬ 
tifical  in  1550.  Take,  for  example,  the  form  prescribed 
for  the  consecration  of  bishops,  which,  according  to  the 
undoubted  opinion  of  the  compilers  of  the  Ordinal,  is 

1  Such  is  the  doctrine  briefly  but  clearly  mentioned  and  asserted  by 
Leo  XIII.  in  his  Bull:  “All  know  that  the  Sacraments  of  the  New 
Law,  as  sensible  and  efficient  signs  of  invisible  grace,  ought  both  to 
signify  the  graces  which  they  effect,  and  effect  the  graces  which  they 
signify.  Although  this  signification  ought  to  be  found  in  the  whole 
essential  rite— that  is  to  say,  in  the  matter  and  form — it  still  pertains 
chit  fly  to  the  form,  since  the  matter  is  a  part  which  is  not  determined 
by  itself,  but  which  is  determined  by  the  form. 

2  In  other  words,  the  laying-on  of  hands  symbolizes  a  transmission 
or  giving,  but  in  no  way  specifies  the  gift  transmitted. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


87 


as  follows  :  “  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum,  et  memento 
ut  resuscites  gratiam  Dei  quae  in  te  est  per  manuum 
impositionem.  Non  enim  dedit  nobis  Deus  spiritum 
timoris  sed  virtutis  et  dilectionis  et  sobrietatis.” 

The  whole  substance  of  this  form  is  found  in  the  first 
three  words,  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum ,  which  of  them¬ 
selves  have  absolutely  no  fixed  specific  meaning;  they 
express  merely  an  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which, 
together  with  the  laying-on  of  hands,  might  be  found 
in  any  Sacrament.1  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  their  signi¬ 
fication  is  determined  by  the  words  which  follow,  “  ac 
memento,  etc.,”  since  plainly  they  do  not  hint  at,  much 
less  express,  the  conveyance  of  any  specifically  deter¬ 
mined  grace,  being  rather  an  admonition  to  the  elect  to 
stir  up  a  grace  which  he  has  already  received — viz., 
“  by  the  laying-on  of  hands.  ”  So,  when  St.  Paul  wrote 
these  words  to  Timothy,2  he  did  not  thereby  confer 
Ordination  upon  him,  but  supposed  that  he  had  been 
already  ordained.  Nor  indeed  can  it  be  said  that  the 
Apostle  there  alludes  determinately  to  the  grace  of 
Episcopate,  since  the  contrary  interpretation  of  those 
who,  following  the  Council  of  Trent,3  apply  the  said 

1  It  is  plain  from  the  abundant  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  and  nota¬ 
bly  of  St.  Cyprian  (Epist.  69,  n ;  72,  2),  that  in  the  reconciliation  of 
public  sinners  and  the  re-admission  of  heretics  into  the  Church,  the 
bishop  or  priest  was  wont  to  lay  his  hands  upon  them,  in  order  to 
impart  to  them  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  the  remissio  peccatorum  and 
the  vinculum  unitatis  et  pads.  (Thalhofer,  Liturgik,  1883, 1,  p.  646.) 

2  Epist.  II.  ad  Timoth  I.  6. 

3  “  Whereas,  by  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  by  Apostolic  tradition 
and  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers,  it  is  clear  that  grace  is 
conferred  by  s&cred  ordination,  which  is  performed  by  words  and 
outward  signs,  no  one  ought  to  doubt  that  Order  is  truly  and  pro¬ 
perly  one  of  the  Seven  Sacraments  of  Holy  Church.  For  the  Apostle 
says:  ‘I  admonish  thee  that  thou  stir  up  the  grace  of  God,  which  is 
in  thee  by  the  imposition  of  my  hands.  For  God  has  not  given  us 
the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of  power  and  of  love  and  of  sobriety.”  (Sess. 
xxiii,  chap.  3.) 


88 


Anglican  Orders. 


words  to  the  Sacrament  of  Orders  in  general,  is  well 
known. 

If,  then,  we  hold  that  for  the  validity  of  Ordination, 
as  for  that  of  every  other  Sacrament,  it  is  necessary, 
before  all  things,  that  the  form  should  be  specifically 
determined  in  itself,  we  must  also  hold  that  Anglican 
Orders  conferred  with  the  forms  of  the  Edwardine 
Ordinal,  not  thus  determined,  are  null  and  void. 

The  Different  Forms  in  the  Liturgies  of  the 

Church. 

The  need  of  having  a  form  specifically  determined  in 
itself  is  deduced  not  merely  a  priori ,  from  the  philo¬ 
sophical  conception  of  a  form,  but  also  a  posteriori,  from 
the  fact  that  there  never  has  been  any  form  used  in  the 
Church,  and  accepted  by  her  as  valid,  which  did  not  at 
least  make  express  mention,  either  of  the  Order,  or  else 
of  the  power,  to  be  conferred.  We  say  “at  least”  in 
order  to  make  it  clear  that  the  determination  required 
for  a  valid  form  is  not  necessarily  an  explicit  mention 
of  both  one  and  the  other,  much  less  a  mention  of  the 
principal  effect  of  the  Order  conferred.  If,  together 
with  the  indication  of  the  Order  of  power,  there  is  also 
expressed  the  principal  effect,  as  in  some  forms,  so 
much  the  better ;  but  if  this  is  simply  omitted,  and  not 
deliberately  excluded,  the  argument  remains  in  all  its 
force. 

In  order  briefly  and  clearly  to  prove  what  has  just 
been  asserted,  we  will  here  give  a  conspectus'  of  the 
forms  of  consecration  accompanying  the .  laying-on  of 

r  For  the  texts  of  the  Liturgies  quoted  see  Assbmani,  Codex 
Liturgicus  Eccles.  Universae ,  Tomi  VIII.,  IX.,  XI  ;  Bibliotheca  Ori¬ 
entalis,  Tom.  III.  Morin,  De  Sacris  Eccles.  Ordinationibus ;  Den- 
zinger,  Ritus  Orientalium;  Duchesne,  Origines  du  culte  Chrttien; 
Haskeul,  Monumenta  Ritualia ,  etc.,  etc. 


Greek.  Old  Roman.  Liturgies. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention.  89 


hands  found  in  the  different  liturgies  recognized  by  the 
Church : 


For  the 
Diaconate. 


We  pray  Th.ee, 
O  Lord,  also  mer¬ 
cifully  to  look 
down  on  this 
Thy  servant 
"  whom  we  hum¬ 
bly  dedicate  to 
the  office  o  f 
DEACON,  that  he 
may  serve  at 
Thy  altars. 

.  .  .  Do  Thou 
Thyself,  O  Lord, 
preserve  in  all 
honesty  of  faith 
this  person  whom 
it  has  pleased 
Thee  through  me 
t  o  promote  t  o 
the  office  of  a 
DEACON,  and 
who  holds  the 
sacrament  with  a 
pure  conscience. 
Grant  (him)  the 
grace  granted  to 
STEPHEN  the 
martyr,  who  was 
the  first  called  by 
Thee  to  the  work 
of  this  ministry. 


For  the 
Priesthood. 


Bestow,  we  be¬ 
seech  Thee,  O 
Lord,  on  these 
Thy  servants  the 
dignity  of  the 
PRESBYTERATE. 


O  God  .  .  .  who 
hast  honored  with 
the  designation  of 
PRESBYTER 
those  who  have 
been  marked  out 
as  worthy  to  min¬ 
ister  the  word  of 
Thy  truth  holily 
in  that  degree, 
Do  Thou,  Lord  of 
all  things,  grant 
in  Thy  good  pleas¬ 
ure,  that  this  per¬ 
son,  whom  it  has 
pleased  Thee  that 
I  should  promote 
.  .  .  may  in 

blameless  conver¬ 
sation  receive  the 
grace  of  Thy 
Holy  Spirit. 


For  the 
Episcopate. 


And  we  there¬ 
fore  pray  thee,  O 
Lord,  to  bestow 
grace  upon  these 
Thy  s  er v  ants 
whom  Thou  hast 
chosen  to  the  min¬ 
istry  of  the  HIGH 
PRIESTHOOD— 
(Summi  Sacer¬ 
dotii). 

Do  Thou,  Lord 
of  all  things,  con¬ 
firm  and  strength- 
e  n  this  Thine 
elect, that, through 
the  hands  of  me, 
a  sinner,  and  of 
the  ministers  and 
bishops  present, 
he  may  by  the 
coming  power, 
and  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit, 
receive  the  EPIS¬ 
COPAL  DIGNITY. 


NasTORiAN.  Syro-Maronitk. 


90 


Anglican  Orders. 


Do  Thou,  O 
Lord,  in  this  hour 
look  upon  Thy 
servant  and  send 
down  into  him 
the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  .  .  . 
and  as  Thou  didst 
grant  grace  to 
blessed  STEPHEN, 
the  first  whom 
Thou  didst  call  to 
this  MINISTRY, 
so  grant  that  help 
from  heaven  may 
come  down  upon 
this  Thy  servant. 


Choose  him  by 
Thy  grace  and  by 
Thy  mercy  pro¬ 
mote  this  T  hy 
servant,  who  on 
account  of  Thy 
manifold  k  1  n  d- 
ness  and  the  gift 
of  Thy  grace,  is 
presented  to-day 
from  the  order  of 
deacons  to  the 
high  and  sublime 
grade  of  PRESBY¬ 
TERS. 


Do  Thou,  who 
canst  do  all 
things,  adorn  also 
with  all  good 
qualities  and  vir¬ 
tues  this  Thy  ser¬ 
vant,  whom  Thou 
hast  made  worthy 
to  receive  from 
Thee  the  sublime 
ORDER  OF  BISH¬ 
OPS. 


' 

Lord  God  .  . . 
who  has  chosen 
Thy  Church  and 
hast  raised  up  in 
it  Prophets  and 
Apostles  and 
Priests  and  Doc¬ 
tors  .  .  .  and  hast 
likewise  placed 
in  it  DEACONS 
and  as  Thou  didst 
choose  STEPHEN 
and  his  compan¬ 
ions,  so  now  also, 
O  Lord,  .  .  grant 
to  these  Thy 
servants  the 
grace  of  Thy 
Holy  Spirit,  that 
they  may  be 
.  elected  DEACONS. 


Do  Thou,  there¬ 
fore,  great  God  of 
virtues  .  .  .  look 
down  also  now 
upon  these  Thy 
servants  and 
choose  them  by 
Thy  holy  election 
through  the  in¬ 
dwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  .  .  . 
and  choose  them 
to  the  PRIEST¬ 
HOOD. 


Do  Thou,  O 
Lord,  even  now 
cause  Thy  face  to 
shine  on  this  Thy 
servant,  and 
choose  him  by  a 
holy  election 
through  the  unc¬ 
tion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  that  he 
may  be  to  Thee 
a  PERFECT 
PRIEST,  .  .  .  and 
confirm  him  by 
the  Holy  Spirit 
in  THIS  holy 
ministry  to  which 
he  is  ascending. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention.  91 


Grant  him,  O 
Lord,  the  power 
and  grace  of 


< 

M 

« 

« 


HOLY  STEPHEN, 
Thy  Protomartyr 
and  FIRST  DEA¬ 
CON,  that  being 
t  filled  with  Thy 
I  Holy  Spirit,  he 
1  may  abide  im¬ 
maculate  in  the 
ministry  of  Thy 
holy  table. 


Listen,  O  Lord, 
now  also  to  the 
voice  of  our  sup¬ 
plications,  and 
preserve  him  in 
this  PRIEST¬ 
HOOD  to  which 
he  has  been 
called,  this  Thy 
servant,  now  or¬ 
dained,  whom 
Thou  hast  chosen 
and  received  into 
the  PRESBY- 
TERATE. 


The  D  i  vi  n  e 
Grace  calls  this 
N.  from  the 
Priesthood  to  the 
EPISCOPATE  .  .  . 
I  lay  hands  upon 
him :  Pray  all 

that  he  may  be 
made  worthy  to 
preserve  the  grade 
of  his  EPISCO¬ 
PATE  immacu¬ 
late. 


The  same  explicit  determination  is  found  also  in  the 
consecratory  forms  of  the  ancient  Gallican  Liturgy ,  of 
the  Jacobite  Liturgy  of  Alexandria,  of  the  Syro-Jacobite, 
of  the  Coptic  and  in  that  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions. 
Such  a  constant  and  uniform  fact  is  admitted  by  all, 
even  by  those  few  Catholic  writers  who,  prior  to  the 
Bull  of  Leo  XIII.,  more  or  less  patronized  the  Anglican 
cause.  The  illustrious  Mgr.  Gasparri  writes  thus  :  “All 
the  (consecratory)  prayers  used  or  approved  of  by  the 
Church  are :  1st,  all  prayers  relating  to  ordination  ; 
2ndly,  they  all  call  down  upon  the  candidate  the  graces 
from  Heaven  necessary  for  his  new  state  ;  3dly,  they  all 
namey  ifi  one  way  or  the  other ,  the  order  in  question.  Abb6 
Boudinhon  was  equally  explicit,  in  October  1895.  In 
his  opinion  :  “  All  the  Catholic  formularies  of  ordina¬ 

tion  are  framed  after  one  uniform  pattern.”  Now,  this 
pattern  always  contains  an  express  mention  of  the  order 
or  power  to  be  conferred.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  would 
be,  in  his  opinion,  somewhat  as  follows :  “  Deus  qui 

.  .  .  .  respice  propitius  super  hunc  famulum  tuum  quem 


92 


Anglican  Orders. 


ad  Diaconatum  (respective  :  Presbyteratum  vel  Episco¬ 
patum  seu  Summum  Sacerdotium )  vocari  dignatus  es ; 
da  ei  gratiam  tuam  ut  munera  huius  ordinis  digne  et 
utiliter  adimplere  valeat.  ” 

No  Conformity  in  the  Edwardine  Ordinal. 

\ 

This  being  admitted,  we  understand  still  better  what 
the  defectus  formae  is,  by  reason  of  which  the  Orders 
conferred  by  the  Edwardine  Ordinal  are  null  and  void. 
In  the  forms,  therein  prescribed  for  the  ordination  of 
priests  and  the  consecration  of  bishops,  there  is  an 
absence  of  all  conformity  to  the  essential  type  con¬ 
stantly  and  universally  followed  in  the  Eastern  and 
Western  Liturgies.  For  whereas  these  latter  are  always 
precatory  and  specifically  determined,  the  former  are 
without  exception  imperative ,  and  contain  no  sort  of 
specific  determination  of  the  order,  nor  of  the  power, 
nor  of  the  principal  effect. 

This  assertion  needs  no  further  proof.  The  Angli¬ 
cans  themselves  recognized  its  truth  when,  in  1662, 
under  Charles  II.,  they  partly  modified  their  forms. 
Thus  in  the  one  above  quoted  they  added  to  the  words 
Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum  these :  in  ojficium  et  opus  Epis¬ 
copi  in  Ecclesia  Dei.  But  as  this  modification,  intro¬ 
duced  a  hundred  and  three  years  after  the  consecration 
of  Parker,  and  a  hundred  and  twelve  after  the  abolition 
of  the  Catholic  Pontifical,  could  not  validate  past  ordi¬ 
nations  which  had  been  invalidated  by  defect  of  form, 
so  neither  could  it  validate  future  ones,  which  remained, 
and  always  will  remain,  invalid  at  least  by  defect  of 
character  in  the  ordainer,  since  they  are  conferred  by 
pseudo  bishops,  who  are  in  fact  laymen.  Hence  the 
Bull  of  Leo  Xm.  justly  observes :  “  This  same  addi¬ 
tion,  even  were  it  sufficient  to  complete  the  necessary 
signification  of  the  form ,  was  introduced  too  late — 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


93 


namely,  a  century  after  the  reception  of  the  Edwardine 
Ordinal,  when  by  reason  of  the  extinction  of  the  hie¬ 
rarchy  the  power  of  ordaining  no  longer  existed."  In 
other  words,  the  remedy,  if  the  modification  of  1662 
can  be  so  called,  was  applied  too  late  :  cum  mala  per 
longas  invaluere  moras. 

Angucans  Shifting  the  Argument. 

And  so  indeed  the  defenders  of  the  Edwardine  Ordinal 
past  and  present  have  themselves  understood  the  matter, 
always  setting  aside  the  aforesaid  modification,  and  bas¬ 
ing  their  thesis  on  other  arguments.  Among  them  are 
to  be  found  some  who  deny  that  the  designation  of  the 
order  or  power  to  be  conferred  is  necessary  for  the  valid¬ 
ity  of  the  consecratory  form  ;  for  example,  the  Angli¬ 
cans,  Messrs.  Lacey  and  Puller,  to  whose  opinion  the 
Abb6  Boudinhon  showed  himself  inclined,  in  July,  1896/ 
thus  reversing  his  conclusion  of  October,  1895. 

It  will  be  enough  here  to  quote  the  words  of  Mr. 
Lacey,  copied  from  Mr.  Puller,  and  approved  by  the 
Abbd  Boudinhon:  “I  answer,”  he  writes,2  “that  the 
mention  of  the  order  is  not  absolutely  necessary,  .  .  . 
for  in  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus  there  are  found  prayers 
for  the  conferring  of  orders  in  the  Roman  Church,  used 
seemingly  in  the  second  or  third  century,  of  which  that 
assigned  to  the  Diaconate  contains  no  mention  whatever 
of  the  order"  We  will  not  delay  to  inquire  if  the  Can¬ 
ons  are  truly  assigned  to  St.  Hippolytus,  or  if  they  go 
back  to  the  second  or  third  century,  or  if  their  origin  is 
to  be  sought  in  Rome  and  the  West,  and  not  rather  in 
the  East ;  nor  shall  we  endeavor  to  ascertain  the  precise 

%■ 

1  Revue  Anglo- Romaine,  July  14. 

2  Dissertationis  Apologeticae  de  Hierarthia  Anglicana  Supplemen¬ 
tum,  Roma,  1896,  page  20. 


94 


Anglican  Orders. 


accuracy  of  their  text,  which  is  quoted  by  Mr.  Lacey  in 
a  Latin  translation  made  from  a  German  version,  not, 
indeed,  of  the  original,  which  is  not  to  be  found,  but  of 
an  Arabic  translation  of  another  translation  presumed 
to  be  Coptic.  All  these  points  have  been  and  are  so 
much  in  dispute  among  the  learned  that  it  seems  to  be 
inexcusable  frivolity,  not  to  say  audacity,  to  oppose  a  . 
doubtful  passage  of  certain  Canons,  probably  apocryphal  J 
or  interpolated,  to  the  indisputable  testimony  of  all  the 
authentic  liturgies  of  East  and  West. 

But  in  order  to  show  the  groundlessness  of  Mr.  Lacey’s 
assertion  we  need  only  confront  it  with  what  the  said 
Canons  of  Hippolytus  do  really  say.  Here  is  the  fifth  : 
“  If  a  Deacon  is  to  be  ordained  let  the  proper  canons  be 
observed ;  and  let  this  prayer  be  said  over  him,  for  it 
has  reference  not  to  the  priesthood,  but  to  the  diaconate , 
as  it  befits  the  minister  of  God.  Let  him  minister  to 
the  bishop  and  the  priests  in  all  things.  For  the  Deacon 
is  such  an  one  as  he  of  whom  Christ  said  :  ‘  If  any  man 
will  minister  to  me  my  Father  will  honor  him.’  Let 
the  Bishop  lay  his  hands  upon  him  and  recite  this  prayer 
over  him  saying  :  ‘  O  God,  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  we  earnestly  beseech  Thee  to  pour  Thy  Holy 
Spirit  upon  Thy  servant  N.  and  to  make  him  ready 
together  with  those  who,  like  Stephen ,  minister  to 
Thee  according  to  Thy  will.  .  .  .  Receive 
his  ministry  [or  diaconate]  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.’  ” 

With  these  words  before  him,  and  remembering  that 
in  all  the  Oriental  Liturgies  the  Order  of  Diaconate  is 
expressed  in  the  form  by  a  reference  to  the  protomartyr 
Stephen,  the  first  deacon,  ordained  by  the  Apostles 
themselves,  let  the  reader  judge  of  the  truth  of  Mr. 
Lacey’s  assertion :  “  In  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus 

.  .  .  the  prayer  assigned  to  the  diaconate  makes  no 

mention  whatever  of  the  grade  to  be  conferred.” 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


95 


Furthermore,  according  to  the  same  Achelis1  on  whom 
Mr.  Lacey  relies,  there  is  a  strict  relation  of  parentage 
between  the  pretended  Canons  of  Hippolytus  and  the 
Eighth  Book  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  the  latter 
being  largely  a  copy  of  the  former.  Now,  in  this  very 
Eighth  Book,  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  contain  the 
following  consecratory  prayer  for  the  diaconate  :2 
“  Almighty  God,  show  Thy  face  upon  this  Thy  servant 
whom  Thou  hast  chosen  to  the  ministry  ( AIAKONIAN\ 
and  fill  him,  as  Thou  didst  fill  the  protomartyr  Stephen , 
with  power  and  the  Holy  Ghost.”  The  word  ministe¬ 
rium ,  used  in  the  Constitutions,  corresponds  undoubtedly 
to  the  word  servitium  in  the  translation  from  the  Ger¬ 
man  version  of  the  Canons  :  but  ministerium  is  simply 
the  Latin  for  fitaxovta.  In  both  alike  this  ministerium , 
or,  if  you  prefer  it,  servitium ,  is  more  than  sufficiently 
determined ;  for  it  is  specified  as  the  ministry  of  Stephen, 
namely,  the  Diaconate.  Let  us  observe,  in  concluding, 
that  as  regards  the  two  consecratory  forms  which  we  are 
here  dealing  with,  prescribed  in  the  same  Canons3  for 
priesthood  and  episcopate,  there  is  no  question  what¬ 
ever.  In  specifically  mentioning  the  order  to  be  con¬ 
ferred  they  conform  exactly  to  the  type  of  all  the  other 
liturgies. 

Therefore  from  the  Canons  of  Hippolytus  not  only 
can  no  serious  difficulty  be  brought  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bull  of  Leo  XIII.,  but,  contrariwise,  they  con- 

1  Die  Canones  Hippolyti,  p.  27. 

2  Sane.  Apost.  Constit.,  lib.  VIII.,  c.  III.,  De  Mystico  Ministerio , 
p.  52.  J.  P.  Pitra,  op.  cit. 

3  See  the  text  in  Achelis,  op.  cit.  can.  III.  and  IV.,  pp.  42  and 
foil.  In  the  form  for  the  Episcopate  we  read :  “  Grant  him  also,  O 
Lord,  the  Episcopate  and  a  merciful  spirit  and  power,”  a.  s.  f.;  for  the 
priesthood  the  rubric  says  :  “  The  same  prayer  is  said  over  him  (the 
priest)  as  over  the  Bishop,  with  the  sole  exception  of  the  word  Episco¬ 
pate .”  (Ibid  n.  31,  p.  61.) 


96 


Anglican  Orders. 


firm  it,  and  furnish  an  invincible  argument  against  the 
sufficiency  and  validity  of  the  vague  and  undetermined 
forms  of  the  Edwardine  Ordinal. 

No  Argument  to  be  Drawn  from  the  Coptic 

Rite. 

More  specious  though  not  more  serious  is  the  reason 
advanced  by  certain  Anglican  ritualists  in  deience  of 
the  sufficiency  of  their  Ordinal,  which  is  founded  on  an 
imaginary  Decree,  wherein  the  Holy  Office  is  supposed 
to  have  declared  for  the  validity  of  the  Coptic  priest¬ 
hood  albeit  conferred,  as  in  the  Anglican  Ordinal,  by 
the  laying-on  of  hands  accompanied  only  by  the  unde, 
termined  form :  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum. 

The  Decree  alluded  to  is  dated  April  9,  1704,  and  is 
as  follows  :  “  The  ordination  of  a  priest  by  the  laying- 
on  of  hands  and  the  pronouncing  of  the  form  Accipe 
Spiritum  Sanctum ,  as  described  in  the  Dubium ,  is  valid, 
but  the  ordination  of  a  deacon  by  simply  imposing  the 
patriarchal  cross  is  altogether  invalid.”1 

Supposing  this  decree  to  be  genuine,  and  supposing 
further  that  it  is  to  be  understood  to  mean  that  the 

i  For  the  better  understanding  of  the  case  in  question  we  take  the 
following  particulars  from  the  Authentic  Acts  of  the  Archives  of  the 
Holy  Office.  (Fasc.  xiii,  fol.  140,  et  sqq.).  On  Oct.  20, 1703,  the  Sacred 
Congregation  of  the  Propaganda  sent  up  to  the  Holy  Office  six  dubia 
proposed  by  the  Most  Rev.  P.  Guiseppe  di  Gerusalemme,  Prefect 
Apostolic  of  the  Missions  of  Ethiopia,  of  which  the  second  was  as  to 
“  whether  an  Abyssinian  priest  or  monk  is  rightly  ordained,  and 
consequently  whether  on  becoming  a  Catholic  he  can  be  or  ought  to 
be  admitted  to  the  exercise  of  his  orders.’'  Their  Eminences,  Judges 
of  the  Holy  Office,  appointed  the  Consultor  Giovanni  Damasceno 
“ut  referat  et  sententiam  suam.expnmat  de  quaesitis.”  The  Consultor 
obeyed  and  answered  the  inquiry  as  follows:  “ Quatenus  Aethiopes 
Jacobitarum  vel  alio  ritu  utantur,  in  quo  eorum  sacerdotes  seu 
monachi  per  manuum  impositionem  ordinentur,  eorum  ordinatio  est 
valida.  .  .  .”  This  votum  was  referred  coram  SSmo.,  on  Feb. 

14,  1704,  (Feria  V),  but  was  not  approved  by  His  Holiness.  The 
Pope’s  answer  is  thus  reported  by  the  Assessor :  “The  Pontiff  orders 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


97 


three  words  there  quoted,  alone  constituted  the  ade¬ 
quate  form  for  the  ordering  of  priests,  it  is  quite  intel¬ 
ligible  that  these  Anglicans  should,  with  a  certain 
appearance  of  truth,  accuse  the  Holy  See  of  self- 
contradiction  by  having  in  1896  condemned  as  insuffi¬ 
cient  for  Anglican  ordinations  the  same  form  which,  in 
1704,  it  admitted  as  sufficient  for  Coptic  ordinations. 

But  both  suppositions  are  absolutely  false.  First  of 
all,  it  is  false  that  the  text  which  they  quote  is  a  genu¬ 
ine  decree  of  the  Holy  Office,  from  whose  authentic 
Acts  it  is  manifest  not  only  that  no  such  decree  ever 
existed,  but  also  that  the  proposition  having  been  made 
by  a  certain  Consultor  under  diverse  forms,  Pope  Clem¬ 
ent  XI.  on  two  several  occasions  expressly  refused  to 
approve  it.1 


me  to  inquire  from  P.  Giuseppi,  and  from  others  versed  in  the  rights 
of  the  Abyssinians,  by  what  form  the  Sacred  Orders  and  the  priesthood 
are  conferred  by  the  schismatical  Bishops  of  Ethiopia,  and  then  that 
the  question  be  formulated  and  proposed  anew.”  The  new  quaesi¬ 
tum  was  prepared  and  set  forth  in  the  following  terms:  “  In  Ethiopia 
since  the  candidates  for  ordination  have  come  from  places  far  apart 
in  order  to  be  ordained  in  the  city  where  the  schismatical  Arch¬ 
bishop  resides,  and  since  the  latter  will  only  ordain  when  from  eight 
to  ten  thousand  are  gathered  for  ordination  in  the  said  city,  it  hap¬ 
pens  at  times  that  he  will  ordain  three  or  four  thousand  in  one  day. 
The  candidates  for  priesthood  being  drawn  up  in  lines  in  the  church, 
the  Archbishop  passing  rapidly  in  front  of  them  lays  his  hand  on  the 
head  of  each  and  says  :  1  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum  ;*  and  upon  the 
head  of  the  candidates  for  diaconate  he  simply  lays  his  episcopal 
cross,  and  since,  by  reason  of  the  great  crowd  and  the  confusion  and 
the  rate  he  goes  at,  it  happens  that  with  some  he  omits  the  laying-on 
of  hands ;  with  others,  the  words  of  the  form  ;  and  both  one  and  the 
other  with  not  a  few,  it  is  desirable  to  know  if  priests  and  deacons 
ordained  in  this  fashion  and  with  this  form  are  validly  ordained.”  It 
is  to  this  question  that  the  supposed  decree  of  April  9,  1704,  is  a 
reply. 

1  See  the  Acts  of  the  Congregations  (Thursday)  held  in  presence 
of  His  Holiness,  February  14,  and  April  10,  1704.  Archives  of  the 
Holy  Office,  fasc.  XIII.  fol.  140  and  foil. 


t 


98  Anglican  Orders. 


Thus  what  our  adversaries  call  a  decree  of  the  Holy 
See,  and  are  pleased  to  oppose  as  a  decisive  argument 
to  the  august  word  of  Leo  XIII.,  was  nothing  more  than 
a  simple  votum  which  in  the  point  concerning  the  priest¬ 
hood  has  no  more  value  than  what  derives  to  it  from  the 
name  of  its  obscure  author.  But,  be  its  value  great 
or  little,  in  no  way  does  it  help  the  Anglican  cause, 
since  its  true  meaning  is  not  that  the  sole  three  words — 
Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum — constituted  the  adequate 
form  of  Coptic  ordinations;  but  only  that  in  certain 
cases  they  were  an  essential  element,  or,  better  still,  a 
complement  of  that  form.  What  these  cases  were  which 
then  and  afterwards  gave  rise  to  doubt  as  to  the  validity 
of  certain  orders  conferred  with  the  Coptic  rite  is  clearly 
stated  in  an  ancient  Relation /  sent  to  the  Supreme  Con¬ 
gregation  by  the  Prefect  Apostolic  of  the  Copts.  “When 
there  are  many  to  be  ordained,”  says  the  Relation ,  “for 
instance,  twenty  or  thirty,  the  Bishop  does  not  lay  his 
hand  upon  the  head  of  all,  but  holds  it  stretched  out  a 
little  above  their  heads  without  touching  them,  and 
recites  the  form  for  all  together  ;i 2  then,  before  giving 
them  the  Communion  in  both  kinds,  he  puts  his 
two  hands  upon  the  two  cheeks  of  each  and  blows 
three  times  upon  their  face  and  mouth,  and  says 
in  Coptic :  Ci  imbneuma  csuab ,  i.  e.,  Accipe  Spiritum 
Sanctum. 

The  doubt  therefore  had  reference  to  the  case  of  col¬ 
lective  ordinations,  when,  to  supply  any  defect  there 
might  be  in  application  to  each  of  the  matter  and  form 
laid  down  in  the  Coptic  Pontifical,  the  ceremony  above 
described  was  added  for  each  individual  in  particular. 


i  Archives  of  the  Holy  Office.  Fasc.  XXIII.,  fol.  86-88. 

2  In  the  case  to  which  an  answer  was  given  by  the  Consultor  Damas¬ 
ceno,  it  is  supposed  that  at  times  there  were  three  or  four  thousand 
or  more  in  one  day. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


99 


Therefore,  the  second  supposition  of  the  Anglicans  is 
also  false  ;  namely,  that  in  this  ceremony  alone  and  in 
the  sole  three  words  repeated  for  every  candidate,  was 
found  the  whole  rite,  the  adequate  form,  of  those  Cop¬ 
tic  ordinations,  pronounced  valid  by  the  Consultor 
Damasceno. 1 

The  defectus  formae  that  caused  Leo  XIII.  to  declare 
the  insufficiency  of  the  Edwardine  Ordinal,  far  from  being 
obscured,  is  brought  out  into  clearer  light,  it  we  com¬ 
pare  the  Anglican  form  with  the  genuine  Coptic  Ponti¬ 
fical  :  for  whilst,  as  is  notorious,  in  the  former  there  is 
no  express  indication  of  the  order  or  power  to  be  con¬ 
ferred,  in  the  latter  they  are  found  more  clearly  and 
explicitly  determined  than  in  any  of  the  liturgical  forms 
already  quoted.  For  example,  let  us  take  the  form  for 
priesthood  as  recorded  among  the  Acts  of  the  Holy 
Office,  in  the  votum  drawn  up  by  the  learned  Assemani, 
in  1773  :  “  The  Bishop  facing  the  west  lays  his  right 

i  Cardinal  Franzeiin,  in  1875,  a  year  before  he  was  created  Cardi¬ 
nal,  at  the  time  Consultor  of  the  Supreme  Congregation,  made  a 
learned  and  deep  study  of  the  above  mentioned  controversy.  We 
give  here  his  conclusion,  referred  to  by  the  London  Tablet ,  Nov.  21, 
1896,  p.  805  ;  “From  all  the  discussions,  hitherto  had,  it  seems  to  be 
clear  that  the  supposed  Resolution  of  1704  was  .never  ratified  by  a 
Decree  of  the  Sacred  Congregation,  but  that  it  was  merely  a  votum 
of  the  Consultor  ;  that  the  Sacred  Congregation  in  i860  made  use  of 
it  for  that  part  only  of  which  there  was  then  question,  namely,  con¬ 
cerning  the  invalidity  of  the  Ordinations,  in  which  not  the  imposition 
of  the  hands  of  the  Bishop  but  only  of  the  Patriarchal  cross  is  said 
to  be  used  ;  that,  moreover,  from  the  Coptic  rite  handed  down  from 
ancient  times,  as  may  be  seen  in  their  Pontifical  books,  it  is  manifest 
that  the  words,  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  do  not  constitute  the  whole 
form ;  that  the  Sacred  Congregation  never  explicitly  nor  implicitly 
declared  that  only  these  words ,  with  the  imposition  of  hands,  suf¬ 
ficed  for  validly  conferring  the  Order  of  Priesthood.”  Votum  datum 
Romae,  die  25  Feb.,  1875.  Arch,  of  S.  Office.  Cf.  the  answer  of 
Card.  Patrizi,  April  30,  1875,  to  Card.  Manning.  The  text  of  this 
answer  is  quoted  by  Gasparri ,  Tract.  Can.  de  Sac.  Ord.  No.  1058. 
See  also  De  Hierarchia  Anglic  ana,  p.  24.8. 


IOO 


Anglican  Orders. 


hand  on  the  candidate  and  prays  thus  :  Lord  God  our 
Ruler  .  .  .  look  upon  N.,  thy  servant  who  is  to  be  pro¬ 
moted  to  the  priesthood  on  the  testimony  of  those  who 
have  presented  him  \fill  him  with  the  Holy  Ghost ,  with 
the  spirit  of  grace  and  counsel,  that  he  may  fear  Thee 
and  rule  Thy  people  with  a  pure  heart .  .  .  Grant  him 
the  spirit  of  Thy  wisdom,  that  full  of  works  unto  heal¬ 
ing  and  words  unto  teaching ,  he  may  instruct  Thy  people 
in  meekness  .  .  .  that  he  may  perform  the  office  of  a  priest 
over  Thy  people,  and  renew  with  the  laver  of  regenera¬ 
tion  as  many  as  draw  nigh  unto  him.  (Here  signing 
his  brow  with  the  thumb,  he  says :)  We  call  thee,  N. 
as  a  priest  to  the  Holy  Altar  of  the  Faithful  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Amen.” 

The  Prayer  “  Omnipotens  Deus.” 

In  order  to  remedy  the  evident  defect  proper  to  the 
vague  and  imperative  forms  of  the  Edwardine  Ordinal, 
some  defenders  of  the  validity  of  Anglican  Orders  have 
recourse  to  the  prayer  Omnipotens  Deus ,  which  is  read 
after  the  Litany,  maintaining  that  the  true,  sufficient 
and  valid  form  is  not  found  only  in  the  words  Accipe 
Spiritum  Sanctum ,  but  in  them  together  with  this 
prayer.  To  prove  their  assumption  they  insist  on  the 
moral  union  which  exists  between  all  the  parts  of  the 
Anglican  rite,  and  therefore  between  the  prayer  referred 
to  and  the  imposition  of  hands  later  on,  although  there 
is  between  them  a  considerable  interval  during  which 
many  other  ceremonies  take  place.  But  even  prescind¬ 
ing  from  the  question  whether  the  sacramental  form  can 
in  this  way  precede  its  proximate  matter,  it  is  plain  that 
the  pretended  moral  union  then  only  is  sufficient 
when  the  two  parts  morally  united  are  both  essential 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


IOI 


parts  of  the  same  sacramental  rite  ;  now  can  we  say  that 
the  prayer  Omnipotens  Deus  is  no  less  an  essential  part 
of  the  Edwardine  Ordination  rite  than  the  laying-on  of 
hands  with  the  words  :  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum  ? 
Were  it  so,  it  ought  to  be  recited  by  the  consecrating 
Bishop ;  but  this  is  not  prescribed  in  the  rubric  ;  and 
moreover  it  is  a  well-attested  fact,  that,  in  past  times  at 
least,  it  was  said  indifferently  by  the  consecrator  or  by 
someone  else.  Further ;  the  essential  part  of  a  rite  can¬ 
not  be  found  outside  it ;  but  this  prayer  in  the  Edward¬ 
ine  Ordinal  in  use  from  1662  till  now  is  found  outside 
the  rite  for  ordaining  deacons  and  priests.  It  is  read, 
and  according  to  the  rubric  ought  to  be  read,  as  a  Collect 
in  the  so-called  Communion-service,  which  is  distinct 
from  the  ordination-service.  Hence  Abb£  Boudinhon, 
a  witness  not  unfavorable  to  Anglicans,  was  forced  to 
observe  that  :  “  This  indeed  constitutes  a  serious  diffi¬ 

culty,  ...  it  is  certainly  strange  to  find  the  essential 
ordination  prayer  in  the  collect  of  the  mass ;  the  mass 
and  the  ordination  are  two  distinct  liturgical  functions 
.  .  .  one  can  hardly  presume  that  the  prelate  in  reciting 
the  collect  intends  to  confer  ordination. m 

Moreover,  it  must  be  observed  that,  in  the  very  case  of 
consecrating  a  bishop,  the  prayer  in  question  is 
recited  when,  according  to  the  Ordinal,  the  rite  of  con¬ 
secration  strictly  so  called  has  not  yet  begun.  The 
Anglican  rubric  on  this  point  is  unmistakable.  Here  is 
what  it  says  immediately  after  that  prayer :  “Then  the 
Archbishop  sitting  in  his  chair  shall  say  to  him  that  is 
to  be  consecrated  :  Brother,  forasmuch  as  the  Holy 

i  “  Ceci  constitue  d£ja  une  s£rieuse  difficult^  .  .  .  .  II  y  a  plus, 
quelque  chose  de  bien  Strange  &  voir  la  pri&re  essentielle  de  1’ ordina¬ 
tion  dans  la  collecte  de  la  messe  ;  la  messe  et  l’ordination  sont  deux 
fonctions  liturgiques  ....  Ton  ne  saurait  prosumer  que  le  pr£- 
lat,  rdcitant  la  collecte,  veuille  faire  l’ordination.”  Revue  Anglo- 
Romaine,  July  14,  1896,  p.676. 


Anglican  Orders. 


102 


Scripture  and  the  ancient  canons  command  that  we 
should  not  be  hasty  in  laying  on  hands,  and  admitting 
any  person  to  government  in  the  Church  of  Christ 
which  he  hath  purchased  with  no  less  price  than  the 
effusion  of  his  own  blood  ;  BEFORE  I  admit 
you  to  this  administration  I  will  examine  you  in  certain 
articles,”  etc. 

Thereupon  follows  a  lengthy  examination  consisting 
of  eight  questions  put  by  the  consecrator  to  him  who  is 
to  be  consecrated,  and  as  the  latter  is  free  to  answer  any 
of  them  negatively  he  is  still  in  a  position  to  be  dis¬ 
missed.  After  this  examination  has  been  gone  through 
to  the  satisfaction  of  both  parties,  another  prayer  is 
said  ;  and  then  only  does  the  rite  of  consecration  strictly 
so  called  begin,  with  the  singing  or  recitation  of  the 
Veni  Creator.  Then  there  is  more  prayer,  and  at  last 
we  come  to  the  laying-on  of  hands  with  the  words 
Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum.  From  all  this  it  is  clear,  not 
merely  that  the  laying-on  of  hands,  or  the  matter  of  the 
Sacrament,  is  separated  by  a  long  interval  from  that 
prayer  in  which  our  opponents  would  find  at  least  a  part 
of  the  form  for  episcopal  ordination  ;  but  also  that  this 
supposed  precatory  form  is  placed  outside  the  rite  of  con¬ 
secration,  and  is  therefore  separated  from  the  matter 
morally  as  well  as  physically.  No  wonder  that  their 
opinion,  as  they  themselves  allow,1  was  never  admitted 
nor  even  known  by  the  compilers  of  the  Ordinal ;  no 
wonder  that  those  very  Anglicans  who  have  recently 
defended  the  cause  of  their  own  Orders  at  Rome  have 

i  Mgr.  Gasparri,  in  his  work  De  la  Valeur  des  Ordinations  Angli- 
canes,  discussing  this  point,  which  he  adopts,  confesses  that  “  the 
Anglicans,  even  the  Compilers  of  the  Ordinal,  did  not  think  of  it,” 
(les  Anglicans,  m£me  les  redacteurs  de  POrdinal,  n’y  avaient  pas 
pens£),  and  subjoins,  “  According  to  others,  the  form  consists  in  the 
words  :  1  Accipe  Spiritum  Sanctum .*  Such,  no  doubt,  was  the 

opinion  of  the  compilers  of  the  Ordinal,”  p.  45.  note  2. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


103 


always  adhered  and  do  still  firmly  adhere  to  the  opposite 
opinion.1 

For  the  rest,  although  we  were  to  admit  a  moral  union 
between  the  prayer  Omnipotens  Deus ,  where  the  order 
to  be  conferred  is  mentioned,  and  the  subsequent  laying- 
on  of  hands ;  and  even  if  we  were  to  suppose  a  like 
mention  in  all  the  rubrics  and  prayers  prescribed  by  the 
Ordinal ,  still  there  would  always  remain  the  principal 
flaw  which  vitiates  the  form — namely,  that,  id  reticet 
quod  deberet  proprium  significare ,  it  says  nothing  of 
what  it  ought  particularly  to  specify  ;  nothing  of  priest¬ 
hood  in  the  strict  sense  as  instituted  by  Christ  at  the 
Last  Supper,  when  He  said  to  His  Apostles  :  “  Do  this 
for  a  commemoration  of  Me.”  For  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  the  Ordinal  was  substituted 
for  the  ancient  Catholic  Pontifical  with  the  explicit, 
deliberate  and  firm  resolve  of  excluding  every  idea  of 
priesthood  from  the  Anglican  Church ;  and,  to  this 
end,  its  compilers  not  only  denied  the  existence  of  the 
Sacrament  of  Orders,  but  of  set  purpose  left  out, 
changed  or  mutilated  all  those  ancient  formulas  and 
ceremonies  which  in  any  way  asserted  or  supposed  or 
symbolized  the  priesthood,  the  Real  Presence,  or  the 
Eucharistic  Sacrifice.  And,  therefore,  the  words  bishop 
and  priest  which  occur  here  and  there  in  the  Anglican 
Ordinal  are,  as  the  Bull  rightly  observes,  mere  names 
meaning  something  different,  from  the  reality  instituted 
by  Christ 2  —  restant  nomina  sine  re  quam  instituit 
Christus. 

1  Mr.  Lacey  wrote  thus,  a  few  days  before  the  publication  of  the 
Bull  of  Leo  XIII.:  “  In  our  dissertation,  my  confrere,  Edward  Denny, 
and  I,  according  to  our  ability,  contend  that  the  imperative  formulas, 
which  are  used  in  the  Anglican  Ordinations,  be  considered  as  valid 
and  adequate  forms  joined  with  the  imposition  of  hands.  Neither 
will  depart  from  this  opinion .”  Op.  cit.  p.  19. 

2  Over-seer,  elder,  servant,  by  force  of  their  etymology— i.e , 
episcopus,  presbyter,  diaconus — have  no  “  sacerdotalist  ”  meaning, 


Anglican  Orders. 


104 


^  Dr.  Taylor,  Anglican  Archdeacon  of  Liverpool,  con¬ 
firms  what  has  been  just  said.1  “  It  is  a  simple  matter 
of  historical  fact  that,  in  the  Ordinal  of  1550,  not  only 
was  the  sacrificial  formula  of  ordaining  ( Receive  the 
power  of  offering  sacrifice ,  a.  s.  f.)  expunged,  but  every 
other  trace  of  the  sacerdotal  and  sacrificial  idea  was 
deliberately,  and  of  set  purpose,  removed  and  wholly 
eliminated  from  it.  The  word  ‘priest’  is  indeed  re¬ 
tained,  but  the  priestly  functions  and  expressions  are 
gone.”  Dr.  Ryle,  also  an  Anglican  and  Bishop  of 
Liverpool,  reasserts  the  same  fact.  “Our  manner  of 
conceiving  the  office  of  a  minister  of  Christ  is  very 
different  from  that  of  the  Pope.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
ecclesiastic  of  the  Roman  Church  is  a  true  Priest, 
whose  principal  duty  is  to  offer  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass.  On  the  other  hand,  the  ecclesiastic  of  the 
Anglican  Church  is  in  no  wise  a  Priest,  although  we 
call  him  such;  he  is  only  an  Elder,  whose  principal 
office  is  not  to  offer  a  sacrifice,  but  rather  to  preach  the 
)rd  of  God  and  to  administer  the  Sacraments.”2 


The  Defect  of  Due  Intention. 


But,  as  we  said  at  the  beginning,  the  essential  defect¬ 
iveness  of  the  form  is  not  the  only  ground  of  complaint, 
for  there  is  besides  the  defect  of  due  intention  which  is 
closely  connected  with  it. 

This  due  intention,  as  is  well  known,  is  absolutely 
necessary  for  the  validity  of  all  the  Sacraments.  “  If 
any  man  say  that  an  intention  at  least  of  doing  what 
the  Church  does  is  not  required  in  the  ministers  when 
they  make  or  confer  the  Sacraments,  let  him  be  anath- 

and  as  such  could  be  well  retained  as  names  of  official  grades  in  the 
ecclesiastical  polity  of  a  body  whose  desire  was  to  retain  the  shadow 
and  part  with  the  substance  of  the  Catholic  religion. 

1  Tablet ,  Nov-  7,  1896. 

2  The  Guardian .  Nov.  4,  1896,  p.  1766. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention.  105 

etna.”  Thus  the  Council  of  Trent  defines ;  thus  the 
leading  Anglican  canonists1  teach  ;  thus  the  very  nature 
of  that  “human  act,”  whereby  the  Church’s  minister 
must  perform  the  rite  prescribed  by  her,  requires  that  it 
should  be.2 

As  the  Bull  states  explicitly,  the  Church  can  only 
judge  of  the  existence  of  this  intention  so  far  as  it  is 
outwardly  manifested ;  as  to  the  mind  or  intention,  so 
far  as  it  is  something  hidden  within,  the  Church  passes 
no  judgment ;  but  so  far  as  it  is  declared  outwardly  she 
ought  to  judge  of  it.  Therefore  the  Church  holds,  and 
till  the  contrary  is  proved  wishes  all  to  hold,  that  such 
due  intention  is  never  absent  whensoever  the  minister 
seriously  goes  through  the  sacramental  rite  she  has  pre¬ 
scribed,  using  the  matter  and  form  which  she  uses.  For 
this  reason,  while  the  Church  has  never  recognized  the 
validity  of  Sacraments  administered  by  fools  or  in  a 
state  of  drunkenness  or  in  jest,  yet  she  has  always  ad¬ 
mitted  that  baptism  conferred  by  a  heretic  or  even  by  a 
pagan,  provided  it  has  been  proved  in  /oro  externo  that 
the  proximate  matter,  together  with  the  due  form,  had 

1  O.  J.  Reichel,  A  Complete  Manual  of  Canon  Law ,  London,  1896, 
pp.  11,  12. 

2  “  A  lifeless  instrument  has  no  intention  with  regard  to  the  effect 
it  produces,  the  impulse  it  receives  from  him  who  uses  it  supplying 
the  place  of  intention.  But  a  living  instrument,  like  the  minister  of 
a  Sacrament,  is  not  merely  impelled,  but  to  a  certain  extent  impels 
itself,  inasmuch  as  it  puts  its  members  into  action  by  its  will ;  and 
hence  an  intention  is  required  on  its  part  whereby  it  subjects  itself 
to  the  principal  agent,  bo  as  to  intend  to  do  what  Christ  and  the 
Church  does.”  (Aquinas,  Summa,  iii.  64,  8  ad  1.)  In  other  words, 
we  must  distinguish  between  the  man  and  the  minister.  It  is  in 
many  other  matters,  too,  that  a  mere  intention  determines  whether 
one  is  acting  officially  or  unofficially.  It  does  not  matter  that  the 
minister  believes  or  disbelieves  concerning  the  Church  or  the  Sacra¬ 
ment  ;  all  that  is  requisite  is  the  intention  of  acting  officially  as  the 
Church’s  minister.  By  that  intention  he,  so  to  say,  puts  himself  into 
the  Church’s  hand  and  it  is  she  who,  as  principal  agent,  uses  his 
words  and  acts  as  her  instruments  for  conferring  sacramental  grace. 


io6 


Anglican  Orders. 


been  seriously  applied.  For  the  same  reason  the  Church 
has  never  doubted  the  validity  of  ordinations  conferred 
by  criminal,  or  heretical,  or  schismatical  bishops,  but 
had  allowed  the  orders  of  Nestorians,  Monophysites 
and  other  Eastern  schismatics.  For  in  all  such  cases, 
as  St.  Thomas  says,  the  minister  of  the  Sacrament,  by 
the  very  fact  of  deliberately  and  seriously  using  the  rite 
approved  by  the  Church,  is  reasonably  presumed  to  be 
acting  as  her  representative ;  “  in  the  words  which  he 
utters,”  being  the  Church’s  own  words,  “the  intention 
of  the  Church  herself  is  expressed,  which  suffices  for 
the  performance  of  the  Sacrament,  unless  the  contrary 
be  outwardly  expressed.” 

But  if  the  heretical  minister  of  the  Sacrament,  in 
order  to  maintain  his  particular  heresy,  of  set  purpose 
corrupts  or  rejects  the  Catholic  rite,  and  in  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  the  Sacrament  uses  a  new  form,  which 
excludes  the  signification  of  the  Catholic  forms,  can 
such  a  minister  be  supposed  to  have  the  intention 
required  for  validity,  namely,  “  of  at  least  doing  what 
the  Church  does  ?” 

Such,  in  short,  is  the  question  to  be  dealt  with  in  dis¬ 
cussing  the  validity  of  Orders  conferred  by  Anglican 
bishops  with  the  new  rite  of  Edward  VI. 

The  Judgment  of  Former  Popes. 

Put  thus,  the  question  admits  only  of  the  negative 
answer  given  to  it  by  Julius  III.  in  1553-4  ;  by  Paul  IV. 
in  1555  ;  by  Clement  XI.  in  1704,  and,  of  late,  by  Leo 
XIII.  in  his  Bull  01  September  8,  1896  :  “  If  the  rite  is 
changed  for  the  express  purpose  of  bringing  in  another 
not  received  by  the  Church  and  of  exchanging  what  the 
Church  does  and  what  belongs  to  the  nature  of  the 
Sacrament  by  the  institution  of  Christ,  then  mani¬ 
festly  not  only  is  the  intention  absent  which  is  requisite 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


107 


for  the  Sacrament,  but  a  contrary  and  repugnant 
intention  is  present.” 

The  doctrine  here  stated  so  clearly  by  the  reigning 
Pope  was  enunciated  with  just  as  much  precision  by  his 
predecessor  Pope  Zachary,  in  746.  The  latter  was 
informed  by  two  illustrious  ecclesiastics,  Virginius  and 
Sidonius1,  that  a  certain  priest  of  their  province  through 
his  ignorance  of  Latin2  used,  when  baptizing,  to  mangle 
the  form,  saying :  “  Baptizo  te  in  nomine  Patria  et  Filia 
et  Spiritus  Sancti,”  and  that  S.  Boniface,  Archbishop 
of  Mayence,  deeming  such  baptism  invalid,  had  ordered 
them  to  rebaptize  all  who  had  been  baptized  by  the  same 
priest  in  the  manner  aforesaid. 

Upon  this,  Pope  Zachary  wrote  the  famous  letter  to  S. 
Boniface,  dated  July  1,  748,  and  set  the  Decree  of 
Gratian8 :  “  Most  Holy  Brother :  if  he  who  baptized 
them  spoke  as  above,  not  for  the  sake  of  introducing . 
error  or  heresy  but  marring  the  language  simply  through 
ignorance  of  the  Roman  diction,  we  cannot  consent  to 
their  being  rebaptized4.”  Therefore  the  Pope  recog¬ 
nized  that  if  the  said  corruption  had  been  effected,  not 
by  mere  ignorance  of  the  language,  but  by  a  deliberate 
purpose  of  introducing  error  or  heresy,  the  Sacrament 
would  certainly  be  invalid;  in  other  words,  that  in  the 
latter  hypothesis  the  change  would  have  been  a  proof 
that  in  using  a  corrupt  sacramental  form  he  did  not 

1  Both  became  Bishops  afterwards,  Virginius  of  Salzburg,  and 
Sidonius  of  Passau .  Cf.  P.  JAFFE ,  Monumenta  Moguntina ,  Berlin, 
1866,  p.  167,  notes  3  and  4. 

2  “  Dum  baptizaret,  nesciens  latini  eloquii,  infringens  linguam. ” 

3  Part  III.  De  Consecratione ,  Dist.  IV,  can.  86.  The  text  cited 
by  us  is  that  published  by  JAFFE  in  his  Bibliotheca  Rerum  Germani¬ 
carum ,  Tom.  Ill,  as  above,  p.  168. 

4  “  Sanctissime  frater,  si  ille  qui  baptizavit  non  errorem  introducens 
aut  haeresim ,  sed,  pro  sola  ignorantia  romanae  locutionis  infringendo 
linguam,  ut  supra  fati  sumus,  dixisset,  non  possumus  consentire  ut 
denuo  baptizentur.” 


io8 


Anglican  Orders. 


intend  to  do  through  it  what  the  Church  does  through 
her  form. 

The  Change  of  Words. 

So  it  is  that  S.  Thomas,  the  faithful  interpreter  of 
Catholic  tradition  reasons,  speaking  of  the  validity  of 
the  sacramental  form  when  the  fixed  words  of  which  it 
consists  are  corrupted  in  the  pronunciation,  he  distin¬ 
guishes  carefully,  as  Pope  Zachary  had  already  done, 
between  cases  where  it  happens  through  ignorance  and 
those  where  it  is  deliberately  effected.  Of  the  latter 
cases  he  writes :  “  He  who  corrupts  the  sacramental 

words  in  the  pronunciation,  if  he  does  it  of  set  purpose, 
is  shown  not  to  intend  to  do  what  the  Church  does,  and 
therefore  is  shown  not  to  perform  the  Sacrament.”1 
Afterwards,  dealing  expressly  with  our  present  question, 
namely,  whether,  saving  the  validity  of  the  Sacrament, 
it  is  possible  to  change  the  form  by  an  addition  or  sub¬ 
traction,  he  teaches  that :  “  As  touching  all  these 

changes  which  may  come  about  in  the  sacramental 
forms,  two  things  are  to  be  considered  ;  the  first,  in  regard 
to  him  who  pronounces  the  words,  whose  intention  is 
necessary  for  the  Sacrament ;  and  if  therefore,  by  such 
addition  or  subtraction,  he  intends  to  introduce  another 
rite  which  is  not  received  by  the  Church,  the  Sacrament 
is  shown  not  to  be  valid,  because  he  appears  not  to 
intend  to  do  what  the  Church  does.”2 

1  Dicendum,  quod  ille  qui  corrupte  profert  verba  sacramentalia, 
si  hoc  ex  indusiria  facit,  non  videtur  intendere  facere  quod  facit 
Ecclesia  ;  et  ita  non  videtur  perfici  sacramentum.” — Summa  Theo¬ 
logica,  P.  III,  quaest.  60,  art.  7.  ad  3. 

2  ‘‘  Circa  omnes  istas  mutationes  quae  possunt  in  formis  sacramen¬ 
torum  contingere,  duo  videntur  esse  consideranda ;  unum  quidem  ex 
parte  eius  qui  profert  verba  cuius  intentio  requiritur  ad  sacramentum; 
et  ideo  si  intendat,  per  huiusmodi  additionem  vel  diminutionem, 
alium  ritum  inducere  qui  non  sit  ab  Ecclesia  receptus ,  non  videtur 
perfici  sacramentum  ;  quia  nou  videtur ,  quod  intendat  facere  id  quod 
facit  Ecclesia  **  Ibid,  art.  8.  Respondeo  dicendum. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention.  109 

And  Gasparri1  himself  admits  that  the  most  illustrious 
theologians  have  always  argued  in  the  same  way.  Car¬ 
dinal  DeLugo,2  for  instance,  among  the  older,  and  Car¬ 
dinal  D’ Annibale  among  the  more  recent.  The  latter 
says  :  ‘  ‘  What  some  teach  as  to  the  invalidity  of  a  Sacra¬ 
ment  when  the  minister  makes  some  non-substantial 
change,”  ( a  fortiori  if  it  be  substantial),  “  with  a  view 
to  introducing  an  error  or  new  rite,  is  to  be  understood 
as  implying  that  he  is  thought  not  to  have  the  intention 
of  doing  what  the  Church  does.  It  is  a  question,  there¬ 
fore,  of  presumption  ;  of  fact  and  not  of  law.” 

The  full  justification  of  this  presumption  is  not  plain 
till  we  remember  that,  in  the  sacramental  forms,  we 
should  attend  not  merely  to  the  words  considered 
materially ,  e.  g. ,  whether  they  be  grammatically  mascu¬ 
line  or  feminine,  or  whether  they  can  be  understood  in  this 
sense  or  another  ;  but  we  must  attend  also,  and  even 
principally  to  the  special,  and,  so  to  say,  concrete  sense 
given  to  them  by  him  who  pronounces  them.  When¬ 
ever,  therefore,  such  words,  according  to  the  minister’s 
ordinary  use  of  the  language,  and  having  regard  to  the 
end  for  which  they  were  introduced  and  employed  by 
him,  have  a  signification  evidently  opposite  to  that 
always  given  them  by  the  Church,  it  can  safely  be  said 
that  the  minister  in  question  wishes  to  do  the  opposite 
to  what  the  Church  does  ;  but  he  can  never  be  supposed 
to  wish  to  do  the  same  thing. 

1  De  la  valeur  des  Ordinations  Anglicanes,  Paris,  1895,  p.  25. 

2  De  Sacramentis  in  genere ,  Disp.  II,  no.  116.  Lyons,  1670,  p.  32. 
There  DE  LUGO  correctly  observes  that,  “St.  Thomas  does  not 
universally  deny  the  validity  of  a  Sacrament  administered  with  the 
intention  of  introducing  a  new  rite,  but  he  infers  by  argument  the 
probable  defect  of  the  requisite  intention.”  (“St.  Thomas  non  negat 
universaliter  valorem  Sacramenti  cum  intentione  inducendi  novum 
ritum,  sed  arguitive  infert  probabiliter  defectum  debitae  intentionis.”) 
That  is  true  only  with  reference  to  the  novelty  of  the  rite,  not  when 
there  is  question  of  a  signification  opposed  to  the  Catholic  rite. 


Ilo 


Anglican  Orders. 


The  Intention  of  the  Reformers. 

Now  this  and  nothing  else  is  what  we  find  in  regard 
to  the  Orders  conferred  by  the  Bdwardine  Ordinal. 
That  this  Ordinal ,  compiled  by  notorious  heretics  and] 
substituted  by  lay  authority  for  the  Catholic  Pontifical, 
differs  from  the  Pontifical,  is  a  fact  admitted  by  all.1  < 
Further:  no  one  has  ever  been  bold  enough  to  deny 
that  it  differs  from  all  the  other  ancient  Pontificals  of1 
East  and  West  recognized  as  valid  by  the  Church,  and 
preserved  even  still  by  heretics  and  schismatics ;  and  we 
ourselves  have  already  given  abundant  proof  of  the 
same.  Also,  because  among  these  various  rites  none 
corresponded  to  the  taste  and  intentions  of  the  English 
Reformers,  they  resolved  to  take  no  account  of  them, 
and  to  introduce  a  new  Ordinal,  which  they  accordingly 
did.2 

Furthermore,  it  is  beyond  doubt  that  all  liturgical 
innovations,  and  especially  those  in  the  rite  of  ordina¬ 
tion,  were  made  by  the  compilers  of  the  Ordinal ,  not 
casually  or  through  error  or  ignorance,  but  of  set  pur¬ 
pose,  with  the  deliberate  intention  of  excluding  from 
the  new  forms  whatever  was  found  in  the  old  ones  to  be 
repugnant  or  opposed  to  the  doctrines  which  they 
professed.3 

And  thus  the  English  reformers,  who  repudiated  the 

1  Cf.  G.  IV.  CHILD ,  Church  and  State  under  the  Tudors,  London, 
1879.  PP-  114-117  !  ESTCOURT,  The  Question  of  Anglican  Ordina¬ 
tions  Discussed ,  London,  1873,  passim. 

2  Since  the  change  was  presumably  not  for  nothing,  but  either  to 
eliminate  some  popish  error  or  to  introduce  some  neglected  essential, 
we  may  ask  Anglicans  to  state  clearly  what  was  the  advantage 
directly  aimed  at,  if  it  was  not  to  exclude  all  notion  of  a  sacrificing 
priesthood  ? 

3  See  DOM  GASQUET,  Edward  VI.  and  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer ,  pp.  261  and  foil.;  N.POCOCR,  The  Principles  of  the  Reform¬ 
ation.  etc.  London,  1875,  pp.  12  and  19;  The  English  History 
Review ,  October,  1886. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


in 


Catholic  doctrine  as  to  the  existence  and  nature  of  the 
Sacrament  of  Orders,  as  their  acts  and  writings  attest,1 
strove  for  this  very  reason,  i.  e.,  to  admit  any  necessary 
form  or  matter  would  have  been  inconsistent  with  the 
explicit  denial  of  a  Sacrament  of  Orders — to  suppress 
all  mention  in  the  consecratory  forms  of  the  order  or 
power  to  be  conferred;  whence  originates  that  vagueness 
and  indefiniteness  in  the  forms  already  adverted  to. 
But  that  this  fundamental  error  was  not  simply  a  pri¬ 
vate  one  in  their  own  mind,  but  was  also  publicly  pro¬ 
fessed  by  them,  is  proved  not  only  from  the  witness  of 
contemporary  English  writers,  but  also  from  the  explicit 
declaration  of  the  25th  of  those  Anglican  Articles ,  which 
were  compiled  and  substituted  for  the  profession  of  the 
Catholic  faith  at  the  same  time  that  the  new  Ordinal 
was  compiled  and  substituted  for  the  Catholic  Pontifical. 
It  runs  as  follows:  “  There  are  two  sacraments  ordained 
of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel,  that  is  to  say,  Baptism 
and  the  Supper  of  the  Loid.  Those  five  commonly 
called  Sacraments,  that  is  to  say,  Confirmation,  Penance, 
Orders ,  Matrimony  and  Extreme  Unction,  are  not  to  be 
counted  for  Sacraments  of  the  Gospel,  being  such  as 
have  grown  partly  of  the  corrupt  following  of  the 
Apostles  ;  partly,  are  states  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  but  yet  have  not  like  nature  of  Sacraments  with 
Baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  for  they  have  not  any 
visible  sign  or  ceremo7iy  ordained  of  God.2 

1  BURNET.  History  of  the  Reformation;  vol.  I,  page  461,  and 
vol.  IV,  page  471  ;  HUNT.  Religious  Thought  in  England,  vol.  I,  p. 
43.  Cf.  CHILD  op.  cit.  Appendix  pp.  293-304.  A  lull  collection  of 
the  opinions  of  the  compilers  of  the  Ordinal  was  prepared  for  the  use 
of  the  Roman  Commission  by  the  English  theologians  MO  YES, 
GASQUET and  DA  VID  FLEMING.  We  were  able  to  consult  it, 
and  verify  the  accuracy  of  the  assertion  made  in  the  text. 

2  In  the  Catholic  Pontifical  used  in  England  before  the  reform  of 
Edward  VI.,  the  candidate  for  Priesthood  is  admonished  that  those 
who  are  to  be  ordained  “  receive  the  chalice  with  wine,  and  the  paten 


112 


Anglican  Orders. 


It  was  only  natural  that  as  they  denied  the  Sacra¬ 
ment  of  Orders  to  be  a  true  sacrament  the  compilers 
of  the  new  Ordinal  should  also  deny  the  dogmas  so 
closely  bound  up  with  it,  such  as  the  Real  Presence, 
the  sacrificing  priesthood,  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Altar. 
And  so  they  excluded  the  Mass  from  their  new  Liturgy  ; 
declaring  that:  “the  sacrifices  of  Masses,  in  which  it 
was  commonly  said  that  the  priest  did  ofler  Christ  for 
the  quick  and  the  dead  to  have  remission  of  pain  or 
guilt,  were  blasphemous  fables  and  dangerous  deceits.” 
(Article  XXXI.) 

Hence  they  eliminated  from  their  Ordinal  all  those 
ceremonies  which  supposed  or  referred  to  any  of  the 
said  dogmas,  such  as  the  consecration  with  sacred  oils, 
the  giving  of  the  instruments,1  and  the  rest.  Whoever 
will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  the  Pontifical  with  the 
Edwardine  rite  of  ordination  will  see  at  a  glance  how 
studiously  the  latter  has  avoided  all  mention  of  priest¬ 
hood,  priest,  sacrifice  and  altar ;  and  how  systemati¬ 
cally  the  formulas  and  prayers  have  been  mutilated, 
adulterated  or  altogether  suppressed,  wherever  they 
make  any  reference  to  those  things  which  the  Church 
has  always  and  everywhere  desired  to  express  by  them. 

And,  therefore,  to  pretend  that  the  Anglican  bishop 
ordaining  with  this  new  rite  of  his,  which  is  the  direct 
negation  of  the  Catholic  rite,  means  to  do  what  the 

-with  hosts  from  the  hand  of  the  Bishop,  inasmuch  as  by  these 
instruments  they  may  know  that  thy  have  received  the  power  of  offer¬ 
ing  propitiatory  victims  to  God;  for  to  them  it  belongs  to  celebrate  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord  on  the  Altar  of  God,” 
(“Accipiunt  et  calicem  cum  vino  et  patenam  cum  hostiis  de  manu 
Episcopi,  quatenus  his  instrumentis,  potestatem  se  accepisse  agnoscant 
placabiles  Deo  hostias  offerendi:  Ad  ipsos  namque  pertinet  saramen- 
tum  Corporis  et  Sanguinis  Domini  in  Altare  Dei  conficere .”) 

i  See  on  this  point  the  excellent  work  of  Rev.  Sidney  F.  Smith, 
Reasons  for  Rejecting  Anglican  Orders.  London,  1895,  pp.  69 
and  foil. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention.  113 

Church  does  with  her  rite,  would  be  to  pretend  that 
two  forms,  not  merely  different,  but  opposite  in  their 
signification,  could  produce  the  same  formal  effect. 

The  Intention  of  the  Church. 

And,  in  fine,  what  is  it  that  the  Church  intends  and 
has  always,  both  in  East  and  West,  intended,  in  confer¬ 
ring  Holy  Orders  on  her  ministers  ?  If  we  study  her 
express  declarations,  and  especially  her  liturgies,  it  is 
clear  that  she  intends  and  has  always  intended  to  do 
what  Christ  did  at  the  Last  Supper — namely,  to  make 
true  priests ,  who  should  not  merely  have  power  to 
preach  the  Word  of  God  and  to  administer  the  Sacra¬ 
ments,  but  who  should  also  be  gifted  with  the  visible 
and  external  priesthood,  instituted  by  the  same  Christ 
Our  Lord,  for  the  purpose  of  consecrating  and  offering 
upon  the  altar  His  very  Body  and  Blood,  under  the 
appearances  of  bread  and  wine. 

“Christ,”  says  the  Council  of  Trent,  “declaring 
himself  to  be  constituted  a  priest  forever  after  the  order 
of  Melchisedech,  offered  his  Body  and  Blood  to  God 
the  Father,  under  the  appearances  of  bread  and  wine, 
and  gave  them  under  the  same  sign  to  His  apostles, 
whom  He  then  was  making  priests  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  that  they  might  eat  thereof ;  and  He  commanded 
that  they  and  their  successors  in  the  priesthood  should 
offer  the  same,  saying,  ‘  Do  this  for  a  commemoration 
of  Me,’  as  the  Catholic  Church  has  always  understood 
and  taught.  ’  ’ 1  And  are  we  to  suppose  that  this  is  what 
the  compilers  of  the  Ordinal  intended,  and  what  the 
Anglican  bishops  intended,  and  intend  to  do  when 
they  consecrate  and  ordain  with  the  said  Ordinal  ?  If 
so,  why  did  the  former  of  set  purpose  change  the  ancient 

i  Cone.  Trid.  Dec.  de  sac.  missae,  Sess.  XXII.  c.  z. 


Anglican  Orders. 


1 14 

rite  wherever  there  was  reference  to  priesthood;  and 
why  do  the  latter  deliberately  make  use  of  the  forms 
so  changed  ?  Why  have  they  abandoned  the  Catholic 
Pontifical  and  all  the  ancient  rites  to  introduce  and  use 
continually  a  new  rite  not  received  by  the  Church? 

The  answer  is  clear.  They  did  so  and  do  so  because 
they  have  positively  excluded  priesthood  in  the  strict 
sense.  By  those  forms  and  with  that  rite  it  is  their 
intention  to  constitute  simply  a  minister  who  may  be 
called  Presbyter  or  Bishop  ;  but  never  has  it  been  their 
intention  to  make  a  true  priest  {sacerdos).  And  this  the 
genuine  Anglican,  who  is  not  a  ritualist,  confesses  openly 
and  honestly. 

A  writer  in  the  Speaker  says:1  “The  majority  of 
English  Anglicans  never  supposed  that  their  clergy 
possessed  the  powers  peculiar  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
priesthood,  and  they  have  always  repulsed  every  pre¬ 
tension  of  authority  founded  on  such  sacerdotal  power.” 
Another  writer:2  “With  the  reformation  the  heads  of 
the  Church  of  England  separated  deliberately  and 
effectively  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  repudiated  her 
teaching  on  the  Priesthood  and  Episcopate,  and \  therefore , 
never  had ,  in  ordaining ,  any  intention  of  conferring  a 
priesthood ,  since  they  considered  sacerdotalism  an  injury 
to  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  without  foundation  in  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  repugnant  to  all  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel.”  A  third  adds:3  “The  ecclesiastic  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  a  true  priest ,  whose  principal  office 
is  to  offer  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass.”  On  the  other 
hand,  the  ecclesiastic  in  the  Anglican  Church  is  in  no 
manner  a  priest ,  although  he  is  so  called  ;  he  is  only  a 

1  September  26,  1896. 

2  The  Rocky  September  25,  1896. 

3  Dr.  Ryle,  Anglican  Bishop  of  Liverpool,  in  the  Guardian , 
November  4,  1896. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention.  115 

Presbyter.”  A  fourth  states : 1  “We  do  not  believe  in 
Orders  in  the  Catholic  sense.  .  .  .  Do  what  we 

will,  we  cannot  offer  sacrifices.  We  are  only  ministers , 
like  our  brethren  in  the  Nonconformist  churches.” 

This  Intention  Excluded  from  the  Edwardine 

Ordinal. 

With  good  reason,  then,  did  H.  E.  Cardinal  Vaughan 
write  recently  to  an  Anglican:  “It  is  impossible  to 
ignore  the  doctrinal  and  historical  fact  that  for  three  cen¬ 
turies  the  Church  of  England  has  repudiated  the  essen¬ 
tial  character  of  the  Catholic  rite  of  ordination,  and  has 
used  instead  a  form  which  was  of  set  purpose  intended 
to  exclude  the  idea  of  a  sacrificing  priesthood.”2 

To  say,  therefore,  what  some  have  said  lately,  that  he 
who  ordains  in  conformity  with  the  Ordinal  of  Edward 
VI. ,  seriously  intends  thereby  to  make  true  priests  such 
as  the  Church  has  always  made,  is  an  outrage  on  com¬ 
mon  sense.3  Whence  Franzelin4  wisely  observes : 
“  Since  the  Sacraments  of  the  New  Eaw  are  visible  effec¬ 
tual  signs ,  they  effect  just  what  they  signify.  It  is,  then, 
absurd  that  a  visible  rite  from  which  the  signification 

1  The  Vicar  of  Hexton,  in  the  Echo,  quoted  by  the  Tablet ,  Decem¬ 
ber  19,  1896,  p.  975. 

2  Letter  to  Mr.  Howell,  October  2,  1894.  See  Ihe  Tablet  of  Oct. 
13»  l894>  P-  58i. 

3  The  same  must  be  said  of  the  assertion  of  those  who  pretend 
that  the  compilers  of  the  Ordinal ,  by  abolishing  the  Priesthood  and 
the  Sacrifice,  and  by  rejecting  the  ancient  rites  for  a  new  one  which 
would  correspond  to  their  heresy,  desired  merely  to  restore  the  rite 
of  Ordination  to  its  primitive  institution  of  Apostolic  times. 

4  “  Cum  sacramenta  novae  legis  sint  visibilia  signa  efficacia,  illud 
operantur  quod  significant :  absurdum  ergo  est,  ritum  visibilem  in 
quo  excluditur  significatio  potestatis  sacerdotalis  conferendae,  esse 
sacramentum  ad  hanc  ipsam  potestatem  conferendam.  Votum  of 
February  25,  1875,  p.  9,  Archives  of  the  Holy  Office. 


n6 


Anglican  Orders. 


of  priestly  power  is  excluded ,  should  be  a  Sacrament  for 
the  conferring  of  priestly  power. 

Mr.  Lacey’s  Vicious  Circle. 

From  what  has  been  said  so  far,  it  will  be  easy,  to  see 
the  emptiness  of  the  accusation  which  Mr.  Lacey  makes 
against  the  Bull  of  Leo  XIII.,  in  the  Contemporary  Re¬ 
view  for  December,  1896.  According  to  him,  the  doc¬ 
trinal  portion  of  the  Bull  revolves  within  the  narrow 
limits  of  the  vicious  circle,  proving  the  invalidity  of  the 
form  from  the  defect  of  due  intention,  and  the  defect  of 
due  intention  from  the  invalidity  of  the  form;  so  that 
“  the  two  arguments  combined  will  make  an  excellent 
circle.  Read  apart,  they  leave  us  wondering  what  the 
Bull  does  mean.” 

Whatever  be  true  of  other  readers  we  are  certain  that 
at  least  Mr.  Lacey  and  his  ritualistic  colleagues,  who 
worked  so  hard  to  hinder1  the  publication  of  the  Bull, 
are  perfectly  clear  as  to  “what  it  does  mean  ;  ”  and  per¬ 
haps  it  is  j  ust  because  its  meaning  is  so  clear  and  per¬ 
emptory  that  they  are  so  anxious  by  cavillings  and 
sophisms  to  find  obscurities  in  it.  Be  that  as  it  may, 
the  accusation  made  by  Mr.  Lacey  is  absolutely 
unfounded,  since  neither  is  the  invalidity  of  the  form 
proved  from  the  defect  of  intention,  nor  conversely.  The 
invalidity  of  the  Anglican  form  is  demonstrated  from  the 
fact  that  the  said  form,  considered  in  itself  and  in  the 
historical  circumstances  which  determined  its  compila¬ 
tion.  is  vague  and  indefinite ;  it  lacks  the  principal 
essential  elements  common  to  all  Catholic  forms;  it  makes 

i  Note  what  we  have  said  of  the  actions  of  Messrs.  Lacey  and  Pul¬ 
ler  in  Rome,  on  page  46,  note.  To  become  convinced  of  the  facts 
one  need  but  read  Mr.  Lacey’s  statements  in  his  article,  regarding  his 
relations  with  several  of  the  Cardinals  and  two  members  of  the  Ro¬ 
man  Commission. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention.  117 

no  mention  of  what  from  its  very  nature  the  sacramental 
form  of  Ordination  should  signify.  Into  all  this  the 
heretical  intention  of  the  minister  who  makes  use  of  the 
form  in  no  way  enters.  The  form  would  be  and  would 
remain  invalid  although  the  Anglican  minister  wished 
thereby  to  effect  what  the  Catholic  Church  effects  with 
her  form. 

In  like  manner  the  defect  of  due  intention  in  the 
Anglican  minister  is  not  deduced  from  the  simple  fact 
that  he  uses  an  invalid  form  in  ordaining,  but  from  the 
fact,  so  often  insisted  on,  that  in  conforming  himself 
seriously  to  the  Ordinal,  he  makes  use  of  a  form  which 
he  knows  was  changed  of  set  purpose,  and  substituted 
deliberately  for  that  of  the  Catholic  Pontifical,  with  a 
view  to  introducing  a  new  rite,  different  from  and  in 
its  adequate  signification  opposite  not  only  to  that  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  but  also  to  those  of  all  the  Churches 
East  and  West,  from  the  remotest  antiquity  even  to  our 
own  days.  If  Mr.  Lacey  will  read  the  Bull  again,  with 
a  little  more  attention,  he  will  perhaps  be  convinced  of 
the  great  blunder  he  has  committed. 

The  “  Historical  Error  ”  on  the  Other  Side. 

There  is  another  accusation  of  Mr.  Lacey’s  in  the  said 
article  which  we  must  not  let  pass  unblamed.  He 
accuses  the  Holy  Father  of  having  committed  “  an  extra¬ 
ordinary  blunder”  in  his  Bull  by  asserting  that  in  1704 
the  practice  to  be  followed,  when  the  Traditio  instru¬ 
mentorum  had  been  omitted  in  ordination,  was  already 
established. 

Before  examining  the  proof  with  which  Mr.  Lacey 
substantiates  his  accusation,  it  will  be  well  to  notice 
that  the  statement  in  the  Bull  which  he  refers  to  is 
founded  on  a  number  of  decisions  given  by  the  Holy 
Office  previous  to  1704 ;  decisions  which  if  published 


n8 


Anglican  Orders. 


along  with  their  accompanying  acts  and  votes  would 
almost  fill  two  great  folio  volumes.  Elsewhere  we  gave 
an  indication  of  the  existence  of  these  documents  with 
their  precise  dates  (1603-1699),  and  of  the  general  title 
under  which  they  are  found  collected  together  and 
preserved  in  the  archives  of  the  Holy  Office.  Here,  for 
example  is  one,  of  1697.  Mgr.  Scanagatta,  Bishop  of 
Avellino,  suffering  from  gout  in  the  hands  had  omitted 
for  some  time  in  ordinations  the  customary  traditio 
instrumentorum  prescribed  by  the  Pontifical.  When  this 
got  to  be  known  by  Cardinal  Orsini,  then  Archbishop  of 
Benevento,  afterwards  Pope  Benedict  XIII.,  he  referred 
the  case  to  the  Congregation  of  the  Holy  Office  asking, 
as  we  read  in  the  Acts:  “  Not  indeed  if  the  ordinations 
are  to  be  repeated,  but  only  as  to  the  mode  of  ordaining, 
whether  it  is  to  be  repeated  absolutely  or  conditionally.  ” 
The  inquiry  was  answered  by  the  following  decree : 
“  On  Wednesday,  August  1,  1697,  the  doubt  was  again 
proposed  and  thoroughly  discussed  as  to  whether  the 
ordinations  performed  by  the  Bishop  of  Avellino  are 
null  and  void  for  that  he  did  not  himself  deliver  the 
instruments,  or  matter,  of  the  subdiaconate,  diaconate 
and  priesthood,  respectively;  and  also,  whether  the 
aforesaid,  who  have  been  ordained  in  Holy  Orders,  are 
to  be  absolutely  ordained  or  only  under  condition ;  His 
Holiness  (Innocent  XIII.)  having  heard,  etc.,  decreed 
that  in  the  case  in  question  it  was  safer  that  the  ordina¬ 
tions  should  be  reiterated  under  condition.”  This 
decree  is  seven  years  earlier  than  that  issued  in  1704  by 
Clement  XI.  in  the  case  of  the  Anglican  Bishop  Gordon, 
and  is,  as  we  have  said,  one  of  a  long  series  of  like 
decrees  published  by  the  same  Congregation  of  the  Holy 
Office  during  the  whole  century  preceding  1704.  There 
is  no  doubt,  therefore,  of  the  absolute  exactness  and 
historical  truth  of  Leo  XIII.  ’s  assertion  that  at  the  time 
of  Clement  XI.,  and  particularly  in  1704,  when  the 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


TI9 

“giving  of  instruments”  was  omitted,  “it  was  custom¬ 
arily  prescribed  that  the  ordination  should  be  repeated 
under  condition.” 

Whence  it  follows  that  the  “extraordinary  blunder” 
has  been  committed  not  by  him  who  on  the  faith  of  so 
many  weighty  documents  has  asserted  the  fact,  but  by 
him  who  has  denied  it,1  ignoring  and  not  even  suspect¬ 
ing  the  existence  of  such  document. 

The  “  Extraordinary  Blunder.” 

But  the  “  blunder”  seems  still  more  “  extraordinary” 
when  we  examine  the  proof  Mr.  Lacey2  offers  in  order  to 
convict  the  Bull  of  an  historical  error.  The  whole  of 
this  proof  consists  of  a  Resolution  of  the  Congregation  of 
the  Council,  dated  later  than  1704,  and  quoted  by  Bene¬ 
dict  XIV.3  In  this  Resolution,  it  is  enjoined  that  veri  fi¬ 
catis  exfositis ,  i  e ,  the  omission  of  the  delivery  of  the 
instruments  being  proved,  “let  the  bishop  proceed4  to 
repeat  the  whole  ordination  in  private,  under  condi¬ 
tion.”  In  order  to  use  this  as  a  proof  of  his  thesis 
against  the  Bull,  we  must  suppose,  as  Mr.  Lacey  sup- 

1  Mr.  Lacey  might  have  been  more  cautious  in  making  his  accusa¬ 
tion  against  the  Pontiff  if  he  had  consulted  the  work,  known  to  him, 
of  P.  LE  QUIEN ,  Nulliti  des  Ordinations  Anglicanes,  Paris,  Simart, 
1725.  In  it(Tom.  ii,  p.390)  is  found  the  case  of  Mgr.  Du  Moulinet,  Bishop 
of  Seez,  who,  as  in  the  instance  cited  by  us  above,  had  omitted  in  the 
Ordinations  the  tradition  of  the  instruments.  The  solution  given 
in  1604  by  Pope  Clement  VIII .of  repeating  the  ordination  conditionally , 
is  found  in  the  letters  there  transcribed  by  the  Secretary  of  Cardinal 
Bubalis,  Nuncio  in  France. 

2  Contemporary  Review,  p.  799. 

3  De  Synodo  Dioecesana,  lib.  viii,  cap.  10,  Tom.  xi,  1854,  pp.  268- 
272. 

4  Ut  verificatis  expositis ,  Episcopus  procedat  ad  secreto  iterandam 
ordinationem  ex  integro  sub  conditione.  The  identical  solution  was 
repeated  in  1796.  See  Lib.  Decret.  146,  Arch,  of  the  Congregation  of 
the  Council. 


120 


Anglican  Orders. 


poses,  that  this  resolution  was  absolutely  the  first 1  of  its 
kind  ever  sanctioned  by  the  Church.  Now,  this  is  proved 
clearly  false  by  the  documents  of  the  Holy  Office,  cited 
above.  But  neither  can  it  be  supposed  with  truth  that 
it  was  the  first,  in  a  relative  .sense,  among  a  series  of 
similar  decisions  given  by  the  same  Congregation  of 
the  Council.  In  fact,  the  Acts  of  that  tribunal,  which 
Mr.  Eacey  seems  to  mix  up  with  the  Holy  Office,  openly 
attest  the  contrary.  According  to  the  Raccolta  lately 
published  by  Pallottini,2  the  said  resolution  seems  to 
have  been  preceded  by  at  least  three  or  four  others  of 
the  same  tenor.  And  in  this,  also,  the  Congregation  of 
the  Council  had  simply  considered  what  was  the  ancient 
practice,  and  had  guided  its  own  action  by  that  of  the 
Supreme  Congregation  of  the  Holy  Office  in  past  years. 

Conclusion. 

The  Holy  Father  assures  us  that  before  giving  his 
final  judgment  on  the  intrinsic  worth  of  Anglican  Ordi¬ 
nations  he  desired  that  all  the  arguments  for  them  should 
be  examined  accurately,  and  particularly  by  Himself  in 
union  with  their  Eminencies,  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme 
Congregation,  and  especially  those  arguments  which  had 
been  discussed  pro  and  con  by  able  theologians,  canon¬ 
ists  and  historians  in  a  special  Roman  Commission 
instituted  by  him  expressly  for  this  purpose.  “All 
these  things  He  and  Our  Venerable  Brethren,  the  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Congregation,  pondered  long  and 
deeply.”  Furthermore,  the  Holy  Father  wished  before 
giving  sentence  to  consider  the  question  of  opportune¬ 
ness,  “  whether  it  was  opportune  and  expedient  that  the 

1  In  the  Contemporary  Review ,  p.  799,  he  takes  this  for  granted, 
“Such  is  the  origin  of  the  practice 

2  Collectio  omnium  Conclus,  et  Resolut.  Congreg.  Concilii,  etc. 
Tom.  xvi.,  Roma,  1892,  pp.  63-68. 


Defect  of  Form  and  Intention. 


121 


same  should  be  declared  again  by  Our  authority,”  thus 
satisfying  the  scruples  of  those  who  feared  lest  a  new 
authoritative  declaration  might  break  off,  or  at  least 
partly  arrest,  the  happy  reaction  towards  Catholicism 
observable  for  some  time  past  in  England.  But  in  the 
present  circumstances  and  after  the  fierce  polemics  raised 
during  the  last  two  years  in  favor  of  Anglican  Orders, 
not  only  by  Ritualists,  but  even  by  some  Catholic 
writers,  it  was  obvious  and  natural  that  if  the  Pope  had 
kept  silent  “a pernicious  error  would  have  been  occa¬ 
sioned  to  not  a  few  who  think  that  they  can  find  the  Sac¬ 
rament  of  Orders  and  the  fruit  thereof  where  it  does  not 
exist ;  ”  and  therefore  concludes  Leo  XIII.:  “  It  seemed 
good  in  Our  Lord  that  We  should  pronounce  sentence.” 

It  is  not  therefore  policy  or  any  other  motive  of  mere 
human  prudence  which  has  induced  Leo  XIII.  to  con¬ 
demn  Anglican  Ordinations,  but  only  the  irresistible 
evidence  of  their  nullity,  and  the  imperative  duty  he 
owes  to  God  and  to  souls  redeemed  by  the  Blood  of 
Christ.  Faithful  to  his  office  as  Supreme  Teacher  and 
Father  and  Pastor  of  all  Christians,  he  would  not,  and 
could  not  leave  under  so  dangerous  a  delusion  so  many 
of  his  children  who,  albeit  separated  from  him,  are  sin¬ 
cerely  seeking  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  in  the  unity  of 
the  faith. 

Therefore,  he  has  spoken,  and  his  language  has  been 
clear,  precise,  and  invested  with  all  those  attributes 
which  plainly  show  his  judgment  to  be  not  only  a  wise, 
just,  and  necessary  act  of  the  Highest  authority  in  the 
Church,  but  also  a  perpetual,  decisive  and  irrevocable  act.1 

i  Mr.  Lacey,  in  his  article  in  the  Contemporary  Review,  December, 
1896,  p.  803,  grievously  errs  when  he  judges  otherwise  of  the  pro¬ 
nouncement  by  Leo  XIII.  against  the  validity  of  Anglican  Ordina¬ 
tions.  We  are  surprised  and  regret  to  find  that  the  same  error,  fatal 
to  numerous  souls  and  repugnant  to  the  text  of  the  Bull  and  the 
intentions  of  the  Holy  Father,  has  been  endorsed  by  the  Irish 
Ecclesiastical  Record,  December,  1896,  p.  1116. 


122 


Anglican  Orders. 


Leo  XIII.  has  struck  a  death-blow  against  the  very 
essence  of  Anglican  Orders,  proving  and  declaring  them 
null  and  void,  through  the  intrinsic  defect  of  form  and 
intention.  Thus  Leo  XIII.  has  shown  that  together  with 
unity  of  doctrine,  the  Holy  See  preserves  unity  of  lan¬ 
guage,  as  is  strikingly  illustrated  and  confirmed  in  the 
first  part  of  the  Bull  from  the  acts  of  Julius  III.,  Paul 
IV.,  and  Clement  XI. 

It  is  the  love  of  truth  which  has  moved  us  to  com¬ 
ment  on  this  new  document  of  Leo  XIII.  and  to  deal 
with  a  subject  of  such  deep  import,  whether  it  be  con¬ 
sidered  in  itself  and  in  regard  to  the  British  nation, 
which  for  political  wisdom  and  power  is  the  closest 
image  of  the  ancient  Roman  Empire ;  or  whether  we 
take  account  of  so  many  millions  of  souls  whicn  for 
three  centuries  have  been  living  separated  from  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ.  If  on  the  one  hand  the  thought 
that  so  grand  a  people  as  the  English,  as  it  were  natur¬ 
ally  Christian,  has  been  left  for  such  cycles  of  years 
without  the  sacrifice  of  the  altar  and  without  a  priest¬ 
hood  saddens  and  depresses  us,  yet  the  hope  of  seeing 
both  restored  to  them  once  more  together  with  that  full 
and  perfect  submission  to  the  See  of  Peter,  which  is 
essential  to  all  religion,  consoles  us  and  spurs  us  on  to 
do  something  for  a  cause  to  which  we  have  already 
devoted  years  of  diligent  and  affectionate  study.  It  was 
in  no  sense  party-spirit,  or  love  of  polemics  and  contro¬ 
versy,  or  any  other  less  Christian  motive  which  moved 
us  to  this  enterprise,  but  only  the  reverence  due  to  his¬ 
torical  and  theological  truth,  and  the  desire  of  serving 
a  nation  which  the  example  of  Leo  XIII.,  and  the  holy 
memory  of  our  English  martyrs  make  it  a  duty  for  us  to 
honor  and  love. 


PONTIFICAL  APPROBATION. 


124 


Anglican  Orders. 


\ 


Dilecto  Filio  Salvatori  Brandi,  e  Societate 

J esu,  Romam, 

LEO  PP.  XIIL, 

Dilecte  Fili ,  Salutem  et  Apostolicam  Benedictionem. 

Lucubrationibus  ceteris,  quibus  ad  hanc  diem  in 
adserenda  veritate  Ecclesiaeque  maiestate  vindicanda 
ingenium  studiumque  tuum  probasti,  aliam  opportune 
admodum  addidisti  nuper  qua  sententiam  Nostram  de 
anglicanis  ordinationibus,  argumentis  ex  historia  sacra¬ 
que  theologia  petitis,  illustrare  ac  tueri  elaboras. 
Pergratae  plane  Nobis  acciderunt  industriae  tuae  ;  quas 
eo  maiori  futuras  utilitati  novimus,  quod  libros  a  te 
conscriptos,  in  aliarum  etiam  gentium  sermonem  versos, 
edendos  esse  nunciasti.  Consiliis  laboribusque  tuis 
benigne  ut  Deus  obsecundet  optamus.  Ut  vero 
paternae  Nostrae  dilectionis  pignore  solatioque  ne 
careas,  apostolicam  tibi  benedictionem  amantissime  in 
Domino  impertimus. 

Datum  Romae  apud  S.  Petrum,  die  XXII  ianuarii 
MDCCCXCVII,  Pontificatus  Nostri  anno  decimo  nono. 


Leo  PP.  XIII. 


Pontifical  Approbation. 


125 


To  Our  Esteemed  Son,  Salvatore  Brandi,  of  the 

Society  of  Jesus, 

LEO  PP.  XIII. , 

Health  and  Apostolic  Benediction . 

Dear  Son  : — To  other  works,  whereby  up  to  the 
present  you  have  shown  your  skill  and  readiness  to  set 
forth  the  teaching,  and  to  champion  the  cause  of  Holy 
Church,  you  have  latterly  added  a  well-timed  work,  in 
which  it  has  been  your  aim  to  illustrate  and  strengthen 
by  arguments,  historical  and  doctrinal,  Our  decision 
on  Anglican  Orders.  Your  efforts  are  indeed  most 
gratifying  to  Us;  all  the  more  because  We  are  sure 
they  will  redound  to  yet  greater  profit  in  that  your 
books  are  to  be  circulated  among  other  nations. 
May  God  graciously  forward  your  plans  and  under¬ 
takings. 

As  an  earnest  of  Our  fatherly  regard  and  for  your 
spiritual  comfort  most  lovingly  in  Our  Lord  do  We 
bestow  upon  you  the  Apostolic  Benediction. 

Given  at  St.  Peter’s,  at  Rome,  on  the  twenty-second 
day  of  January,  1897,  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  Our 
Pontificate. 


Leo  PP.  XIII. 


CONTENTS. 


Editor’s  Preface .  2 

The  Buu.  “  Apostoucae  Curae”  (Latin  and  English)  ....  4 

Commentary  on  the  Bude  “  Apostoucae  Curae.” 

Part  I.  Introductory . 38 

Public  Opinion  in  England  regarding  the  Bull — English 
Protestants’  view  of  same — The  Ritualists — Disappointed — 
Historical  Origin  of  the  Anglican  difficulty — Cranmer 
and  the  Anglican  Ordinal — The  Ordinal  under  Mary  and 
Elizabeth — Modification  introduced  in  the  Rite — “Nag’s 
Head  ’  ’  Story. 

Part  II.  The  Judgment  of  Leo  XIII . 57 

Reasons  which  prompted  the  Pontiff  to  pronounce  the 
Orders  Invalid — Julius  III.  and  the  early  ordinations 
under  the  reign  of  Edward  VI. — Paul  IV.  examines  and 
decides  the  question  in  1555 — orders  and  benefices  nulliter 
et  de  facto— The  Bishop’s  “  rite  et  rede  non  ordinati" — 
"In  forma  Ecclesiae  consueta ” — The  foregoing  interpre¬ 
tation  confirmed  by  facts — The  practice  of  reordaining 
Anglican  Bishops  and  ministers  since  1555 — The  case  of 
John  Gordon. 

Part  III.  Defect  of  Form  and  Intention . 83 

The  ceremony  and  the  essential  rite  of  the  Sacrament — 
The  want  of  a  specifically  determined  form — The  differ¬ 
ent  forms  in  the  Liturgies  of  the  Church — The  conformity 
of  the  Edwardine  Ordinal — Anglicans  shifting  the  issue — 

No  argument  to  be  drawn  from  the  Coptic  rite — The 
prayer  "Omnipotens  Deus ” — The  defect  of  due  inten¬ 
tion — The  judgment  of  former  Popes — The  change  of 
words — Reformers’  intention — The  Church’s  intention— 
This  intention  excluded  from  the  Edwardine  Ordinal — 
Mr.  Lacey’s  vicious  circle — The  historical  error  on  the 
other  side — The  extraordinary  blunder— Conclusion. 


Letter  of  His  Hoeiness  Approving  the  Work 


.  .  124 


Ctmerican  (Ecclesiastical  ^Hemetxx 


THE  LARGEST  ECCLESIASTICAL 

MONTHLY  IN  THE  WORLD _ 

Established  in  1889  (1,500  pp.  yearly) 

JL 

PUBLISHED 

(Exclusively  for  Catholic  Clergy 

of  English-Speaking  Countries 


Jt>  & 

Containing  articles  on 

Cfyurcfy  administration 
Pastoral  Tocology 
£iturgy 

Tl?e  (Ecclesiastical  Sciences 
and  (Official  Documents 

of  the  Church.  Supported  by  eminent 
ecclesiastical  Writers  in  America,  England 
and  Ireland,  France,  Germany  and  Italy, 
with  a  resident  editor  of  the  Analecta  at 
Rome. 


NEW  YORK: 

3  East  Fourteenth  Street 


(i) 


“The  American  Ecclesiastical  Review  grows  in  interest 
and  in  value  with  each,  succeeding  number.” — {American  Catho¬ 
lic  Quarterly  Review .) 


“The  American  Ecclesiastical  Review  should  find  a 
place  in  the  library  of  every  priest  and  theological  student  in 
the  land. 

4  4  The  promptness  with  which  it  takes  up  and  discusses  cur¬ 
rent  religious  subjects  is  truly  commendable.  Its  aim  is  to 
acquaint  its  readers  with  such  subjects  by  presenting  them  in  a 
clear  and  unprejudiced  light.  In  this  it  is  always  true  to  its 
object,  and  nowhere  do  we  find  a  more  thorough  treatment  of 
such  questions. 

“Among  its  contributors  are  numbered  many  of  the  most 
prominent  writers  in  the  Catholic  Church.” — {Niagara  Index.) 


4  4  American  Catholics  have,  with  their  ever-growing  energy 
and  organization,  started  an  Ecclesiastical  Review.  .  .  . 
It  contains  excellent  articles ,  cases  of  conscience,  liturgical 
questions,  etc.  .  .  .  The  Review  will  be  found  suitable  to 

Ireland  and  England  as  well  as  America.  ’  ’ —  The  Month ,  London, 
England.) 


44  This  splendid  Review  devoted  to  ecclesiastical  studies.” 

{Rivista  Internazionale ,  Rome,  Italy.) 


4  4  We  unhesitatingly  forecast  a  successful  future  for  The 
Review.  ’  ’ — {Literarischer  Ha?idweiser,  Munster,  Germany.) 


4  4  Eine  sehr  praktische  und  hcohst  interessante  Zeitschrift 
fur  die  hochw.  Geistlichkeit.  ” — {Sendbote  d.  G.  H.) 


4  4  A  publication  of  great  promise,  is  an  evidence  of  the  fresh 
intellectual  vigor  aroused  among  Catholics  in  America.” — 
{Zeitschrift fur  Kath  Theologie,  Innsbruck,  Austria.) 

(«) 


“  The  articles  are  practical,  strong  and  interesting.  They  are 
the  very  sort  of  articles  that  should  fill  the  pages  of  this  most 
interesting  magazine,  and  the  more  there  are  of  them  written  in 
this  same  spirit,  the  more  successful  will  the  publication  be. 
The  Book  Reviews  and  the  departments  are  up  to  the  mark. 
The  clergy  are  to  be  congratulated  on  the  possession  of  such 
an  admirable  publication  as  The  American  Ecclesiastical 
Review,  which  thoroughly  cultivates  the  field  that  it  has 

made  its  own . No  priest  who  wishes  to  keep 

informed  of  the  thought  of  the  time  relating  to  the  ministry, 
can  be  fully  equipped  without  this  learned  periodical.  ” — {The 
Catholic  Review ,  New  York.) 


“Diese  Kirchliche  Rundschau  fiir  Nord  Amerika  darf  den 
gediegensten  der  katholischen  Lander  Europa ’s  wiirdig  an  die 
Seite  gestellt  werden.  Sie  verbreitet  sich  fiber  alle  Facher  der 
theologischen  Wissenchaft,  wiewohl  ihr  vorherrschender 
Charakter  praktischer  Natur  ist.  Die  ausserordentliche  Reich  - 
haltigkeit  des  Stoffes  fibt  nothwendig  eine  grosse  Anziehungs- 
kraft  aus  auf  den  Leser,  welcher  unter  dem  vielen  immer 

einiges  trifit  das  ihm  zusagt . Aus  diesem  Resumi 

dfirfte  ersichtlich  sein,  dass  die  American  Ecclesiastical 
Review  eine  theologische  Monatsschrift  von  eminenter  Bedeu- 
tung  ist,  welche  nicht  wenig  zur  Forderung  des  kirchlichen 
Lebens  in  den  Vereinigten  Staten  beitragt. ” — {Theol.  Tract 
Quartalschrift ,  Linz,  Austria,  January,  1894.) 


Subscription  payable  in  advance.  For  United  States  and 
Canada,  $3.50  yearly.  European  countries  and  Australia,  $4.00 
yearly. 


American  Ecclesiastical  Itcuictu. 
Bern  Horte. 


3  East  Fourteenth  St. 


STANDARD  CATHOLiIC  BOOI^S. 

Christ  in  Type  and  Prophecy.  By  Rev.  A.  J.  Maas,  S. J.  2  vols.  i2tno,  net,  4  00 

•‘The  author  has  left  no  point  unattended  to.  It  is  seldom  that  so  thorough  a 
work  as  this  is  published.  It  is  full  of  light  and  strength,  and  the  author  has 
spared  no  effort  in  point  of  scholarship  and  research  to  make  it  both  scholarly 
and  intelligent.”  — Boston  Herald. 

Christian  Anthropology.  By  Rev.  John  Thein.  8vo, . net,  2  50 

“A  real  masterpiece  of  its  kind.” — Irish  Eccl.  Record. 

“We  do  not  know  of  any  other  work  in  which  the  evidences  from  the  Chris¬ 
tian  standpoint  are  so  well  massed,  the  points  so  clearly  brought  out,  and  the  field 
of  controversy  so  fully  covered.” — Catholic  World. 

English  Manuals  of  Catholic  Philosophy.  By  the  Jesuit  Fathers  of 


England. 

Logic.  . . net,  $1  25 

First  Principles  of  Knowledge.  i2mo, .  “  1  25 

Moral  Philosophy,  ismo, .  “  1  25 

Natural  Theology.  . . “  1  50 

Psychology,  nmo,  .  .  “  1  50 

General  Metaphysics.  i2mo, .  “  1  25 

A  Manual  of  Political  Economy,  nmo, .  “  x  50 


“  Not  only  is  the  treatment  thorough,  and  the  language  as  near  that  of  every-day 
life  as  the  nature  of  the  subject  would  allow,  but  application  is  made  of  the  whole 
subj  ect  and  of  each  part  of  it  to  the  needs  of  the  day  ."—A  merican  Catholic  Quarterly 

Review. 

BENZIGER  BROTHERS, 

Publishers  and  Booksellers, 

flHV/  YORK.  CIJlCHSl^aTI,  CHICAGO, 

36  and  33  Barclay  St.  343  Main  St.  178  Monroe  St. 


BURNS  8c  OATES,  Ltd., 

28  Orchard  St.»  London,  W. 

Also,  BENZIGER  BROS., 

Now  York,  Cincinnati,  Chicago. 

A  Life’s  Decision.  By  T.  W.  Allies,  K.C.S.G.  Second  and  Cheaper  Edition. 
Cr.  8vo,  cloth.  5/- 

Angllcan  Prejudices  against  the  Catholic  Church.  By  Lady  Herbert. 
Second  Edition.  Cr.  8vo.  Wrapper.  1  /- 

Anglican-Rltualism,  as  seen  by  a  Catholic  and  Foreigner.  A  Series  of  Essays. 
With  an  Appendix  on  the  Present  Position  of  the  Church  in  France.  By 
Abb6  P.  Martin,  D.D.  Denny  8vo,  cloth.  8/- 
Britain’s  Early  Faith.  By  Rev.  W.  H.  Anderdon,  S.J.  With  copious  Notes  and 
Appendix.  Cr.  8vo,  244  pp.,  cloth.  3/- 
Undoubtedly  a  book  for  the  times. —  Weekly  Register. 

Catholic  and  Protestant  Countries  Compared  in  Civilization,  Popular 
Happiness,  General  Intelligence  and  Morality.  By  Rev.  Alfred  Young. 
Seventh  Edition.  Cr.  8vo,  cloth,  632  pp.  4/6  net  (postage  4%d.) 

Catholic  Controversy.  A  Reply  to  Dr.  Littledale’s  “  Plain  Reasons.”  By  Very 
Rev.  H.  I.  D.  Ryder,  of  the  Oratory.  Eighth  Edition.  Fcap.  8vo,  cloth, 
288  pp.  2/6 

Contains  an  Introduction  and  Chapters  on  the  Privilege  of  Peter  and  his 
Successors  in  the  Roman  See,  and  on  Dr.  Littledale’s  Seven  Charges  against  the 
Catholic  Church  in  Communion  with  the  See  of  Peter— Appendix  and  Complete 
Index. 

Clifton  Tracts.  The  English  and  Foreign  Reformation.  Historical  Fallacies, 
Christian  Doctrine  and  Miscellaneous  Tracts.  Complete  in  Two  Vols. 
Globe  8vo,  cloth.  9/- 

Extremely  useful  for  lending  libraries.  Cardinal  Manning  frequently  referred 
to  this  work  as  “  the  best  series  of  tracts  he  knew.” 

(iv) 


Clifton  Tracts,  Selections  from  the.  In  limp  cloth,  gilt  lettered,  in  handy 
form  for  lending. 

Mary  and  Elizabeth,  i Catholic  Worship  and  Devotion,  i/-.  Protest- 
anism  Weighed  in  its  own  Balance,  iod.  The  Church  and  the  Bible,  gd. 
The  Protestant  Reformers  :  their  Lives  and  Deeds,  rod.  How  the  Popes 
obtained  their  Temporal  Power,  8d.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Sacrifice  of  the 
Mass  explained,  8d.  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church,  6d.  Points  of 
History:  the  Inquisition,  the  Gunpowder  Plot,  St.  Bartholomew,  &c.,  i /-. 
Narratives  and  Dialogues,  i /-.  The  Catholic  Church  in  England  before  the 
Reformation,  8d. 

(The  Tracts  may  also  be  had  separately.  List  on  Application.) 
Controversial  Catechism:  or,  Protestantism  refuted  and  Catholicism  estab¬ 
lished  by  an  appeal  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  testimony  of  the  Holy 
Fathers,  and  the  dictates  of  Reason ;  in  which  such  portions  of  Scheff- 
macher’s  Catechism  as  suit  modern  Controversy  are  embodied.  By  Rev. 
Stephen  Keenan.  New  Edition.  Revised  and  Enlarged.  With  Preface 
by  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  Hedley,  O.S.B.  Fcap.  8vo,  cloth.  2 /•. 

Edward  tlie  Sixth:  Supreme  Head.  By  Rev.  F.  G.  Lee,  D.D.  Second  Edition. 
Cr.  8vo,  cloth.  6/-. 

A  curious  and  interesting  addition  to  the  accessible  information  concerning 
the  troublous  times  of  King  Edward  VI.  The  style  of  language  is  keen,  vigorous, 
and  telling. — Oxford  University  Herald. 

Edward  VI.  and  the  Booh  of  Common  Prayer.  Its  Origin  Illustrated  by 
hitherto  Unpublished  Documents.  With  four  fac-simile  pages  of  the  MS. 
By  Francis  Aidan  Gasquet,  O.S.B.,  and  Edmund  Bishop.  Third  Thousand. 
Demy  8vo,  cloth.  12/-  net  (post  free.) 

Manning  (H.  E.  Cardinal)  Religio  Viatoris.  Fifth  Edition.  Cr.  8vo,  cloth.  i'6. 

The  four  following  truths  are  the  four  corners  of  my  faith  :  The  Existence  of 
God — That  God  hath  revealed  Himself  to  me — That  this  Revelation  is 
Christianity— That  Historical  Christianity  is  the  Catholic  Faith  .—Preface. 
My  Return  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  By  H.  A.  Vander  Hoeven.  Cr.  8vo, 
cloth,  202  pp.  1/6  net  (postage  3d.) 

It  will  be  found  to  contain  many  shrewd  and  useful  remarks  on  religious 
subj  ects. 

Newman  (H.  E.  Cardinal)  Apologia  pro  Vita  Sua.  Being  a  History  of  his 
Religious  Opinions.  Cr,  8vo,  cloth.  3/6. 

Newman  ( rl.  E.  Cardinal)  On  the  Difficulties  felt  hy  Anglicans  In  Catholic 
Teaching  Considered.  Two  Vols.  Cr.  8vo,  cloth.  7/-. 

Newman  (H.  E  Cardinal)  Via  Media  of  the  Anglican  Church.  Illustrated 
in  Lectures,  Letters,  and  Tracts.  Written  between  1830  and  1841.  With 
Notes.  Two  Vols.  Cr.  8vo,  cloth.  7/-. 

Origin  and  Developments  of  Anglicanism;  or,  A  History  of  the  Liturgies, 
Homilies,  Articles,  Bibles,  Principles,  and  Governmental  System  of  the 
Church  of  England.  By  Rev.  W.  Waterworth,  S.J.  Post  8vo,  419  pp.  cloth. 

4/6. 

Polemlca:  of  Various  Dates.  By  Rev.  W.  H.  Anderdon  S.J.  Cr.  8vo,  cloth  3/. 

Containing :  Is  there  Unity  in  the  Church  of  Rome  ?— Ritualism— The  Jesuits— 

Luther— and  the  Gainsborough  Discussion. 

Reconciliation  with  the  Roman  Bishop :  Shall  we  seek  it  ?  A  Question  for 
High  Churchmen.  Wrapper,  x/-. 

Twelve  Lectures  on  Ritualism.  By  Rev.  Peter  Gallwey,  S.J.  Two  Vols. 
Cr.  8vo,  cloth.  8/-. 

Contents  :  Ritualism  not  Blessed  by  Heaven— Not  Catholic— Entirely  Opposed 
to  Our  Lord’s  Plan  of  one  Sheepfold  Governed  by  one  Shepherd,  and  to  the  Faith 
of  the  Early  Church— Anglican  Orders,  and  the  Anglican  Confessional. 

Some  Popular  Historical  Fallacies  Examined.  By  the  Author  of  "The 
Religion  of  St.  Augustine.”  Wrapper.  1  /-. 

St.  Peter,  Bishop  of  Rome :  or,  The  Roman  Episcopate  of  the  Prince  of  the 
Apostles,  Proved  from  the  Fathers,  History,  and  Archceology,  and 
Illustrated  by  arguments  from  other  Sources.  By  Rev.  T.  Livius,  C.SS.R., 
M.A.  Demy  8vo,  cloth,  600  pp.  12/-. 

Supremacy  of  the  Apostolic  See.  By  the  Very  Rev.  F.  Hettinger.  Translated 
from  the  German.  With  Preface  by  the  Most  Rev.  George  Porter,  S.J., 
Archbishop  of  Bombay.  Demy  8vo,  cloth.  3/-. 

Unity  of  the  Episcopate,  The.  By  Edward  Healy  Thompson,  M.A.  Cr.  8vo, 
cloth.  4/6. 

The  book  which  made  altogether  the  most  decided  impression  on  my  mind 
was  “  The  Unity  of  the  Episcopate.”  The  principle  of  unity  was  there  unfolded 
in  a  way  that  was  new  to  me,  and  which,  I  think,  does  away  with  a  whole  class  of 
passages  '’and  they  the  strongest)  which  are  usually  alleged  against  the  Papacy. — 
The  late  Fr.  Baker,  Paulist,  quoted  in  his  Life  by  Fr.  Hewitt. 

Vaughan  (H.  E.  Cardinal)  On  the  Reunion  of  Christendom.  Cloth.  1/6-. 


Idoes  N°t 


Date  Due 


